A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM
Summary: Needs a YES.
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
( Adrian Farrel ) Yes
Jari Arkko No Objection
( Ron Bonica ) No Objection
( Stewart Bryant ) No Objection
( Gonzalo Camarillo ) No Objection
( Ralph Droms ) No Objection
( Wesley Eddy ) No Objection
Stephen Farrell No Objection
Comment (2011-11-01 for -)
- Presumably if this experiment is a success then some method of doing automated key management would be required for a successor standards track document. I think just noting that in the security considerations section would be good. - I wondered why TLS wasn't considered as an additional option. Be good to explain why, esp if there's a reason it wouldn't work well enough.
( David Harrington ) No Objection
( Russ Housley ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( Pete Resnick ) No Objection
( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection
( Robert Sparks ) No Objection
( spt ) No Objection
Comment (2011-11-02 for -)
s3.1 and s3.2: Not being a PIM expert, I tripped up over how IPv6 addresses could fit in to TCP Connection ID and SCTP Connection ID. I kind of had to guess where I'd find more information about this, so a pointer to the xoring mechanism in RFC 4061 would have helped a lot.