Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Tue, 06 February 2018 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A61126CF6; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:17:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:, Yingzhen Qu <>,,
Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 09:17:48 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:17:48 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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


This document references/augments rfc7223.  It should reference rfc7223bis
instead.  The examples in Appendix B still show the interfaces-state subtree,
but the main text doesn't.  Are there any other changes in rfc7223bis that
would impact this document?