A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 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
- 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
(Sean Turner) No Objection
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.