Allocating and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels
draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-06

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-27)
No email
send info
Thank you Alia for spending the 1 min to update the abstract.

This document is difficult to read, as it's not optimized per question/answer.
Look at question 2 in section 2, for which the answer is in section 3, but then points to 3.2 for more details.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-22)
No email
send info
- p1: 13 pages and updating 13 RFCs! Is that a record?

- p7: What is an IETF-wide survey?

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2014-03-21)
No email
send info
No objection here; this all sounds good.

Someone might consider whether it's better to correct the grammar of the second sentence in the abstract (I understand what it means to say, but I can't parse it), or let the RFC Editor do it.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-24)
No email
send info
This is just a comment, non-blocking, it would be easier to read if section 2. Questions was combined with section 3. Answers.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) Recuse