Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast in 232/8
draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-09
Yes
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
No Objection
(Allison Mankin)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ned Freed)
(Russ Housley)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-07-06)
Unknown
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...)
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-22)
Unknown
It might be nice to expand MSDP the first time it is used (at the end of Section 1).
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
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-01-22)
Unknown
> SHOULD support source-only trees only, precluding the requirement of do we need 2119 words in the first paragraph of the introduction?