Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework
draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp-04
Yes
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(David Ward)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-24)
Unknown
I am concerned of a number of things with this document. The main issue is that it introduces a level of generality that I'm not sure is called for and brings along with significant complexity. Policy can be applied and fetched from either clients or servers. Policy can apply to actual PC decisions, but also to selection of PCEs. The components necessary to implement this architecture are going to be numerous. Does the industry really need all this, or was the inclusion of all of these options part of some compromise? Also, I was earlier under the impression that COPS is dead, and as a result it might not be such a good idea to build on it. Maybe that is not the case?
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown