MPLS Multicast Encapsulations
draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-encaps-10
Yes
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ron Bonica)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-22)
Unknown
I am wondering whether people have not expressed concerns about making incompatible changes on the wire including usage of semantics of Ethernet codepoints values without obsoleting RFC3032 and RFC4023. It is true that the claim is made that nobody does does MPLS multicast according to RFC 3032 and/or 4023 but how can one be sure that an implementation is not written as we speak, or than another SDO is not building some extension based on what are right now standards-track documents. Would not making this document part of a package that includes also 3032bis and 4023bis documents fixing the deprecated codepoint allocation section be a safer way to avoid potential problems?
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-06)
Unknown
In the Abstract, the doc says: "Both codepoints can now be used to carry multicast packets." For accuracy, this should be something like "Both codepoints can now carry both types of traffic."
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-22)
Unknown
It seems that upstream-label and multicast-encaps drafts are very difficult to understand without each other; perhaps they should be merged.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
(was Yes)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-06)
Unknown
Vijay Gurbani provided a Gen-ART review of -07 on 25 Apr 2008.
Since then -08 and -09 have been posted, yet the minor concerns
that were pointed out have not been addressed. Vijay said:
- S3, second paragraph: s/If Ru and RD/If Ru and Rd/
- Same paragraph: you may want to consider terminating each numbered
item except the last one with a comma.
- S3, the numbered list towards the *end* of the section: You
may want to consider terminating each numbered item with a period.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown