Extensions to Generic Aggregate RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations over Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Domains
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Spencer Dawkins) Yes
(Martin Stiemerling) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
Comment (2014-09-28 for -10)
Thanks for putting this on the experimental track and for clarifying what experimental feedback you want to see. It might be worth adding to the explanation of the experiment something about scoping. In particular, I think that the key issue is that you expect that every node along the path of the flow (i.e. the RSVP path) from PCN-ingress-node to PCN-egress-node must be part of this experiment (i.e. aware of the 248 class number) for the experiment to function. In practice, this probably means that you want to conduct the experiment in domains of nodes that are all aware of the experiment (or do funky stuff with tunnels).
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2014-10-02 for -10)
- 2.13: I'm sorry, I don't get what methods from the referenced RFCs you mean. Can you clarify? I had a (very) quick look at section 4 of 4860 and didn't see anything at all about authentication or data integrity. - Section 5: the first sentence is not. - Section 5: RFC2747 specifics HMAC-MD5 right? That is still ok for this purpose but it would be prudent perhaps to move to HMAC-SHA256 today. Is there any move to do something like that (in RSVP generally I guess, not specific to PCN).
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
Comment (2014-10-01 for -10)
as experimental I do not object.