Use of the Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) List for Synchronized Dependent Path Computations
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-05
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
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
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-08)
Unknown
Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list:
Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical?
Section 5.1: if the PCE can't handle the associated SVEC objects it "may
send a PCErr message". This implies it might construct the paths
anyway. Is there a mechanism to inform the PCC that the requested
associations were not considered during path construction?