[lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 17 February 2016 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC911B2E3A; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:08:24 -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: 6.14.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160217210824.1236.47093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:08:24 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/6G5ZWKA5jJONzrgHD_6gp4Duxjc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:13:36 -0800
Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: [lisp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:08:24 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06: 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:


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.)