Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-11
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
No Objection
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-22)
Unknown
> 4.6. Impact on Network Operation > It is expected that use of PCEP extensions specified in this document > does not have significant impact on network operations. While the addition of PCEP-P2MP extensions may have minimal impact on the level of traffic and operations, the applications that are enabled by activating these extensions may result in increased traffic and operational complexity.
David Harrington Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-04)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-22)
Unknown
I support Tim's DISCUSS position too. Some new comments based on Russ Mundy's SECDIR review: 1) RFC4875 Security Considerations requires that the ingress LSR of a P2MP TE LSP the leaves for the P2MP LSP for use in multi-vendor deployments. Although it's not clear that this document needs to provide this requirement, I wanted to flag the requirement in case that it had been overlooked.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-20)
Unknown
The following text ==== Four values are possible for the leaf type field: 1. New leaves to add; 2. Old leaves to remove; 3. Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized; 4. Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged. ==== Is almost identical to the text two lines above, and the list entry numbers are I think the values, but this is not a clear way to show it. If the authors think there will ever be more than 4 operations, they should consider using a registry.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown