Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-18
Yes
(Terry Manderson)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -14)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -17)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-01-31 for -16)
Unknown
I agree with Stephen that section 6.3 ought to mention RFC7739. If there's a reduction in the chance of a DoS from the previous method, I agree with Stephen that it should be mentioned.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-01 for -16)
Unknown
- Please spell out DR at its first occurrence - Not sure I understand what the intention of the following section is: "6.4. Host Built-in mB4 Function If the mB4 function is implemented in the host which is directly connected to an IPv6-only network, the host MUST implement the behaviors specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. The host MAY optimize the implementation to provide an Application Programming Interface (API) or kernel module to skip the IGMP-MLD Interworking Function. Optimization considerations are out of scope of this specification." Why is this mentioned? Does that has to be normative?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-01-31 for -16)
Unknown
- IPR: so we have a late IPR declaration that sys RAND+royalty but yet the filing refers to the I-D that preceded the application and there's a common author/inventor. Sheesh. But the WG did consider it and were ok going ahead from a look at the list. (So there's no need to reply to my whining here:-) - 6.3: Is RFC7739 worth a mention here? Not sure myself. - section 9: I'd have thought that this solution reduced the potential for a DoS compared to the previous situation where multicast traffic is mapped to unicast? If so, worth a mention?
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -16)
Unknown