Ballot for draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Thank you so much for revising this spec. The number of errata was getting embarrassing and handling that alone makes this a very worthwhile piece of work. But additionally, this represents a milestone for PIM, an effort that started as Experimental, and which is now widely deployed. --- You continue to list Bill's coordinates and email as they appeared on RFC 4601. Is this intentional, or should you update his coordinates? Even if he wants the credit to still show ATT, an up-to-date email address would be good. --- Please look at replacing the reference to 5996 with a reference to 7296
Just a little bit of history in case this draft looks familiar to some of you. This document was on the telechat agenda for 2015-03-12, but it was removed before the call to resolve a DISCUSS from Brian Haberman. That issue has now been resolved.
Thanks for working through the authentication issue with me.
I support Stephen's discuss points. Thanks.
Bill Atwood sent me a great explanation for how IPsec actually works with PIM-SM here. I think adding a version of that to the security considerations text here would be a fine thing, but that's a non-blocking comment, so do add that or not as you see fit. (It was a very clear and easy to follow description of what one needs to setup to get IPsec to work usefully here so I hope you do include a version.) Thanks for bearing with me in the meantime.