[Idr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED25212966F; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:06:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148356759596.13056.13444019601334237871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:06:35 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wdCSXlYg7UCCPIIQpknfwSK1voc>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 22:06:36 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


The first sentence of section 6 seems to delegate at least some security
considerations to RFC 1997. That RFC's  security considerations entirely
comprises the statement that the RFC does not discuss security. (This
would have been a DISCUSS, but I gather from discussion of the genart
review that the authors intend to remove the sentence.)