Skip to main content

The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-06

Yes

(David Ward)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jon Peterson)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

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

David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-06-04) Unknown
The document contains a number of "TBD" scattered throughout the text
which I presume are supposed to be filled in with values that IANA
registers.  It would be a good idea to tell the RFC editor that is your
intention explicitly so none of them are accidentally missed prior to
publication.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
No Objection (2008-06-03) Unknown
I am asking for clarification on this:

   For each type, the first attribute of
   that type is processed, and the action taken depends upon the type.
   This may or may not result in the processing of the next attribute.

Does the last sentence imply (a) that an attribute can disable the
processing of any attributes after itself or (b) that an attribute
can disable/control the processing of attributes of the same type
after itself?

I think you mean the latter. A small edit to make this clearer
would be useful in my opinion.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2008-06-04) Unknown
Section 4., paragraph 1:
>    A new IANA registry is needed for PIM Join Attributes Types.

  Doesn't describe the allocation procedure for new values or the
  initial values. (The gen-art review also raises this issue; I'll let
  Russ hold the DISCUSS for that.)
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-06-03) Unknown
I'm sure the RFC Editor will expand "PIM" to "Protocol Independent Multicast", but if the authors have a chance, please note that the Abstract is not going to be informative to all readers as-is.
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-06-03) Unknown
Support Jari's DISCUSS
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss, No Record, Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown