Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 4127

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Bert Wijnen) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-16 for -)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Lucy Lynch, Gen-ART

Her review indicated a number of places in proto-07 where it was unclear whether the authors were intending 2119 keyword meaning (MUST) where the text said "must". Review forwarded to authors and AD.

HTA: Within my limited time and understanding, this seems sensible.

Philosophical sigh:
I distrust all numbers except 1, 2 and "many".
This document sanctifies the number 8.
I hope they know what they're doing.

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2004-04-13 for -)
No email
send info
Many of the <iana-note> sections are actually requests to the RFC editor to update
values upon assignment.  I don't think this requires any change to the document,
but I thought I'd note it so that the purpose was clear to our RFC Editor liaison.

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-04-13)
No email
send info
  -diff-te-mam-03 and -diff-te-mar-04 and -diff-te-russian-06 say that
  security considerations related to the use of DS-TE are discussed in
  draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-07.  However, the security considerations
  in this document points to RFC 2475, without adding much additional
  insight.  Please remove the additional level of indirection.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-22)
No email
send info
The note which makes clear that this is not DiffServ awareness but something different
has cleared my Discuss.  Transport needs to continue to pay attention to this protocol.

(Thomas Narten) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) (was Discuss) No Objection