Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class (FEC)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
( Adrian Farrel ) Yes
Jari Arkko No Objection
( Ron Bonica ) No Objection
( Ross Callon ) No Objection
( Ralph Droms ) No Objection
( Lisa Dusseault ) No Objection
( Pasi Eronen ) No Objection
( Russ Housley ) No Objection
Comment (2010-03-04 for -)
Please spell out LDP and FEC in the title.
( Cullen Jennings ) No Objection
( Alexey Melnikov ) No Objection
( Tim Polk ) No Objection
Comment (2010-03-02 for -)
Shouldn't this update 5036? The last sentence of the Introduction implies that it does...
( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection
Comment (2010-03-03 for -)
I am in favor of approving this document, but I would like to raise a clarification question origibated by the OPS-DIR review by Menachem Dodge. It is not a show-stopper, but it points to a possible inconsistency between this document and RFC 5036: In Section 8: "IANA Considerations" the following is stated: "The 'Typed Wildcard FEC' Capability requires a code point from the TLV Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the TLV TYPE name space into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come FirstServed region, and Private Use region. The authors recommend that a code point from the IETF Consensus range be assigned to the 'Typed Wildcard FEC' Capability." When checking RFC 5036 Section 4.2 "TLV Type Name Space" I find the following text: "LDP divides the name space for TLV types into three ranges. The following are the guidelines for managing these ranges: - TLV Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF. TLV types in this range are part of the LDP base protocol. Following the policies outlined in [IANA], TLV types in this range are allocated through an IETF Consensus action. - TLV Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF. TLV types in this range are reserved for Vendor-Private extensions and are the responsibility of the individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-Private TLVs"). IANA management of this range of the TLV Type Name Space is unnecessary. - TLV Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF. TLV types in this range are reserved for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility of the individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space"). IANA management of this range of the TLV Name Space is unnecessary; however, IANA is responsible for managing part of the Experiment ID Name Space (see below)." The TLV Type name space is divided into 3 regions but they appear to be not as stated - IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served region, and Private Use region. Rather the division appears to be as follows: 1. LDP Base protocol - allocated through IETF Consensus action. 2. Vendor-Private extensions - IANA management is unnecessar 3. Experimental - IANA management is unnecessary