[netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 02 March 2016 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: netext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7C31A0078; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 03:46:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160302114615.24375.20676.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 03:46:15 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/YMFJSYz6__wmFp745e3jqde6qrg>
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:46:15 -0000

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-13: 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 would have thought that noting that different layer 2
interfaces can have different security properties would be
worth noting, even if we might not want to recommend that
logical interfaces only group physical interfaces with
similar security properties (which may be an interesting
idea, but I can see it is also likely impractical today).

I note that the secdir review [1] raises the same issue but
I don't think there was a response to that. (If there was,
apologies, I didn't find it;-)

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06352.html