Management Guidelines for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier (EID) Block
RFC 7955
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana (was Discuss) No Objection
In the request template, the dates should match the ones in draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block: 2018 instead of 2017 and 2021 instead of 2020.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
I share Alvaro's thought that this should be experimental. (And if not that, then a BCP). -4 (and others) The top level "MUST" follow these policies does not need the MUST. The policies have their own 2119 keywords. As written, it implies things like "MUST follow this SHOULD" which is a bit awkward. 4, policy 2: I gather the point is not so much that the registrations need to be renewed as it is they need to expire if not renewed. That is, there's no SHOULD level requirement for a registrant to renew it's registration (maybe no longer needs the registration.)
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Ongoing discussion with Luigi and Peter and Brian is on the way to resolve issues identified by my earlier discuss. I expect the authors and the sponsoring ADs to ensure that the right thing happens, and have cleared the formal discuss.
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
I can't parse
The conditions of registration renewal should no different to the
conditions of registration.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
This revision (-07) has addressed the IANA concerns raised. Clearing the DISCUSS.