Skip to main content

Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04

Discuss


Yes

(Ross Callon)

No Objection

(Bill Fenner)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Sam Hartman)

Abstain


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

David Kessens Former IESG member
(was No Objection) Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2007-01-11) Unknown
Place holder DISCUSS for IANA to clear up whether any IANA actions are necessary or not
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-01-10) Unknown
5.3 LINK_CAPABILITY object
...
   The contents of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is defined as series of
   variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobject format is
   defined in [RFC3209].

   The following subobjects are currently defined.
...

Is there an IANA registry for the subobjects, which seem to be defined
in a variety of RFCs?
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-01-08) Unknown
  The document references some out-of-date IPsec documents.  Please
  refer to RFC 4302 instead of RFC 2402, and refer to RFC 4303
  instead of RFC 2406.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain (2007-01-10) Unknown
I found this document very difficult to follow.  Side conversations with Adrian and Ross convince me that the issues I was concerned about are due to terminology confusion rather than errors in the document.  But I remain very concerned that we are putting out a document where the set of terms overlaps those used in other IETF communities in ways that hinder communication.  Given that there exist discusses on this document that may require changes, I hope that the chairs and authors can work on alternatives with input from a broader community.