LDP Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-06
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
(Stewart Bryant)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -05)
Unknown
I am balloting No-Obj based on a quick scan of the document showing no impact on the Internet Area protocols and trust in the RTG ADs doing the right thing.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -05)
Unknown
I think I grok what this thing is doing at a high level. But the name "hub and spoke multipoint" seems inapt, since there's not actually a hub and spoke topology required, just a reverse path from leaves to root. Wouldn't something like "P2MP with Upstream Path (PUP)" be more accurate? The acronym "FEC" is never expanded, and might cause confusion for readers who like error correction.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-18 for -05)
Unknown
Like Brian, I skimmed it, didn't see any security issues, and am trusting the RTG ADs to do the right thing.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-18 for -05)
Unknown
- What a file name, I bet it'd sound funny if someone tries to pronounce it:-)