Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs 6 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Comment (2011-07-13 for -)
There is no mention of the fact that individual nodes in a network are free to
implement different algorithms without impacting the interoperability or
function of the network.
Comment (2011-07-11 for -)
I agree with the DISCUSS from Pete Resnick that this seems like a Standards
Track document, not a BCP.
I found this document clear and hope it has the impact the group intends.
I support Pete's discuss though - why did the group choose BCP as the intended
status for this document?
Comment (2011-07-13 for -05)
A reference to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-00 would seem appropriate since
they seek to achieve the same though at different layers.
Comment (2011-07-14 for -)
Maybe add (e.g., by using IPsec between the two tunnel end-points) to the end
of the 2nd sentence in the security considerations. Just to provide an example
of how it might be done.