A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM
draft-ietf-pim-port-09

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)
- 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)
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.