Skip to main content

Internet Exchange BGP Route Server Operations
RFC 7948

Yes

(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2014-10-16 for -03)
I do support Adrian's DISCUSS
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03)

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -03)

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-28 for -04)
Thanks for taking all the review comments on board.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03)

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-13 for -03)
Thank you for responding to the SecDir review.  I see some wording suggestions were made in response to this review,  I do think they would be helpful and would like to see the updates made to the draft:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05065.html

From my review:
This is a non-blocking comment for consideration only.  In figure 2, I see the point of the connections from each router into the route server, demonstrating the point made in the section where you just need n connections to the route server instead of n*(n-1)/2.  What do the dots on the outside connecting each router represent?  I'm asking because the draft later describes use of a shared media like Ethernet, but this diagram looks like the routers are directly connected and it appears to require passing through other routers to route traffic.  If that's correct, you could probably just remove the dots on the outside edge connecting the routers since the point of this section is the connections to the route server.  Otherwise, if they have some sort of meaning, it might help to explain what the dots represent, I'm guessing it's not for the actual exchanges of data.

Section 4.2, The first sentence of paragraph 2 is missing a word making it a bit difficult to read.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03)

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-15 for -03)
With all of the RECOMMENDations and things you SHOULD do in this document in order to prevent "bad things" from happening, I'd have thought this to be BCPish. But I am made to understand that RSs are (somewhat) controversial beasts, and therefore making it a BCP would have been controversial as well. You might want to mention that fact in the document, but it's up to you.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03)

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03)