Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-08: 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work on this. I have a couple of minor comments: - There is an IPR disclosure with possible royalties. The shepherd report says there were no comments in the WG. Was the WG reminded of it? ยง9: "Existing OSPF security considerations and stronger authentication and manual key management mechanisms are specified in [RFC7474] SHOULD be considered for OSPF deployments." Could this say something stronger than "SHOULD be considered"? I'm fine with the SHOULD part, but simply considering it may not be that helpful. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
