MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-08
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-01-24 for -07)
Unknown
[I realized I made a small mistake in one sentence below. Resending] Regarding ... Bert> So in my view, it is not "augmenting" rfc6370, but instead defining a extra/duplicate set of names for the same thing. Huub> They will not be used at the same time in the same domain. The document would be incomplete without such a clarification: "the different name schemes are not supposed to be run in the same domain"
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-03-04)
Unknown
Thanks for dealing with discusses.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-01-21 for -07)
Unknown
Just nits: - section 1: "an alternative way to uniquely identify an operator/service provider" is a bit odd, perhaps it'd be better to say "an alternative way to produce a unique identifier for an operator/service provider"? The current text could be read as saying that was the only way to identify an operator. - section 8: maybe s/describe use of/use/ or s/describe use/describe the use/
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-03-04)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown