Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Inter-FE Logical Functional Block (LFB)
RFC 8013

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-07-01)
No email
send info
Thanks for the speedy and thorough processing of my discuss points.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2016-06-29 for -05)
No email
send info
Liushucheng performed the opsdir review

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Comment (2016-06-28 for -05)
No email
send info
* I am not sure what the point of Section 9 is. There is not much IETF/IESG/IANA can do about this, can we? I think the authors/WG should take this up with the IEEE to get the required ethertype assigned before publication.

* It would have been nice to include a basic IPv6 router example in addition to (or even instead of) the basic IPv4 router example.

* I simply cannot visualize how the TLV encoded metadata format looks like inside the packet and how it saves 4 bytes per metadatum transferred. Specifically how does this differ from the encoding specified in section 6.2 of RFC5810 . Can you please clarify?

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2016-06-28 for -05)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing all transport comments!

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2016-06-29 for -05)
No email
send info
I support Stephen's discuss points.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2016-06-28 for -05)
No email
send info
"The Ethernet type is used to identify the frame as inter-FE LFB type.  Ethertype TBA1 is to be used (XXX: Note to RFC editor, likely we wont get that value - update when available)."  What is the status of the Ethertype registration with IEEE?  Obviously this document shouldn't be published without it.