Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast in 232/8

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(David Kessens) Yes

(Bert Wijnen) Yes

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-01-22)
No email
send info
>    SHOULD support source-only trees only, precluding the requirement of

do we need 2119 words   in the first paragraph of the introduction?

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2004-01-22 for -)
No email
send info
It might be nice to expand MSDP the first time it is used (at the end of Section 1).

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

Comment (2004-07-06 for -)
No email
send info
Draft: draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-08
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Date: 5 July 2004

I believe this is ready for BCP, and is necessary for operational reasons.
I didn't see any issues with the text.

I think the requested variance is justified. This is a case where pragmatism
should win. (One could argue that MSDP is a de facto standard and would
be more logically classified as Informational, but that is another thread...)