Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-05

[Ballot comment]
It is worth noting that the non normative call flow in appendix B is very broken and would be a really bad idea to implement. I highly suggest removing this appendix - or fixing it with some review from some SIPPING folks. One of the problems is that it assumes that GW2 knows what the answering phone will do. For example, if the caller offers video and audio, and even if the GW2 knows what codecs the phone will choose and that it is video capable, GW2 will not know if the human answering the phone will choose to do just audio or both audio and video.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1., paragraph 3:
>    responds by explicitely admitting or rejecting these RSVP requests.

  Nit: s/explicitely/explicitly/


Section 11., paragraph 1:
>    [BCP 78], S. Bradner, IETF Rights in Contributions, RFC3978, BCP 78,
>    March 2005.

  Nit: Unused Reference: 'BCP 78' is defined on line 958, but not
  referenced


Section 11., paragraph 2:
>    [BCP 79] S. Bradner, Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology,
>    RFC 3668, BCP 79, February 2004.

  Nit: Unused Reference: 'BCP 79' is defined on line 961, but not
  referenced

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?  Which chair is the WG
        Chair Shepherd for this document?

Yes, Yes, Shepherd is James Polk (jmpolk@cisco.com)

  1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes. No concerns

  1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization,
        XML, etc.)?

Basically no, however we should ensure that the MPLS WG are well aware of the IETF last call.

  1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

  1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

There was solid consensus. It has been reviewed by a number of people. Including designated expert reviewers in last call.

  1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.  (It should be
        separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into
        the tracker).

No.

  1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
        all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
        Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
        thorough.

Yes.

  1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  Are there normative references to IDs, where the
        IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
        unclear state?  The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs (will delay the publication until
        all such IDs are also ready for RFC publicatioin).  If the
        normative references are behind, what is the strategy for their
        completion?  On a related matter, are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in BCP 97, RFC 3967
        RFC 3967 [RFC3967]?  Listing these supports the Area Director in
        the Last Call downref procedure specified in RFC 3967.

References split. No normative references to drafts.

  1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

This document defines how one can aggregate RSVP reservations when entering traffic engineered (TE) MPLS tunnels. The MPLS tunnel head-end act as an aggregator and tunnels the end-to-end RSVP reservation to the tail-end that is the deaggregator of the reservation. The aggregator is responsible to ensure that the RSVP reservation is fulfilled through the tunnel. The aggregator have the knowledge about the current commitment and behavior of the MPLS TE tunnel, and are thus able to grant or deny further requests for resource from the aggregate, the MPLS TE tunnel represent. This mechanism provides benefits from both RSVP aggregation and MPLS traffic engineering.

        *    Working Group Summary

There is strong consensus in the WG to publish this document. It has been reviewed by several people including expert reviewers in the WG last call. Comments raised has been addressed.

        *    Protocol Quality

This document has been well reviewed in the WG and comments raised has been addressed. PROTO shepherd is James Polk