Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09
Yes
(Alex Zinin)
(Bert Wijnen)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Harald Alvestrand)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ned Freed)
(Thomas Narten)
Abstain
(Randy Bush)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ned Freed Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-10-14)
Unknown
COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08: The Abstract is very weak. I propose: This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document enhances the routing extensions required to support MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE). Move the single paragraph in section 1 to the top of section 2. This will turn section 2 into a very good introduction. Spell out first use of SPF. COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11: Move the single paragraph in section 1 to the top of section 2. This will turn section 2 into a very good introduction.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2003-10-14)
Unknown
Why is draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing Proposed instead of Informational? (It's clear why the other document in the ballot is Proposed.)
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Randy Bush Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2003-10-14)
Unknown
Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of the new data about Shared Risk Link Groups, protection information, and interface switching. About the only I thing that seemed to relate to that was the "if you're looking for diverse paths, choose links with different SRLGs" statement. I then decided it was probably in the OSPF doc, but it doesn't seem to be in OSPF-gmpls-extensions either. Is there some other doc that talks about how implementors should consider the interactions among these pieces of data? For example, what should you do when one link is listed as protected, but in the same SRLG, where another link is a different SRLG but unprotected? Is deterministic behavior on this not something which is important?