[Isis-wg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 24 May 2017 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF9A127873; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, hannes@gredler.at, isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149563744988.28439.5893114377036634706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:50:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/SEW7Rnd7gmfgpwO1AsyF1mt7oTk>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:50:50 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: 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:


(1) I support Adam and Ekr's DISCUSSes about the security

(2) I also agree that this document should not go forward until Clarence
confirms that all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed.

(3) Given the point raised by the shepherd about protocol-agnosticism, it
seems like the existence of single mail (all I could find, but maybe
there is more?) from another WG participant who works for the same vendor
as several of the authors saying that he believes the encodings are
adaptable to OSPF is not quite sufficient justification for putting the
shepherd's concerns aside. OTOH, perhaps there is more context that is
not present in the ballot text, list archives, and minutes I reviewed, so
just flagging this in case there is further explanation that could be
provided to the IESG (don't think this would imply changes to the draft).