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

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 03 March 2016 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 8121F1A90B2; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 03:44:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.15.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160303114426.26364.7741.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 03:44:26 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/rDeJGYKhYL2u3z_JjlG0KjguUEE>
Cc: netext@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@ietf.org, netext-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Benoit Claise'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: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 11:44:26 -0000

Benoit Claise 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:


As mentioned by Jürgen Schönwälder in this OPS-DIR:

The 'grandfather' model for interfaces in the OPS world is RFC 2863
and RFC 7223 builds on that. I think your definitions are reasonably
compatible (except that the other models do not restrict a logical
interface to an IP interface). Perhaps it makes sense to discuss this
related work or at least provide pointers, e.g., add a paragraph at
the end of section 2 explaining how the terminology introduced here
relates to RFC 2863 and RFC 7223?

I also believe it would be a nice addition to the draft.