Skip to main content

Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello: A Clarification Statement
RFC 4558

Yes

(Alex Zinin)

No Objection

(Allison Mankin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Russ Housley)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2006-02-14)
From Gen-ART review by Spencer Dawkins, in case the document is
updated for any other reason:

There was one point that I wish was explained better - there are five different places in the draft where a statement like "use of Node-ID based Hello session is optimal for detecting signaling adjacency failure" is made , but "optimal" is never explained or put in context. I can guess what I think it means, but I'm guessing, and a sentence or two of explanation might make the document clearer for many readers.

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-02-16)
Abstract still refers to this document as a BCP, though it seems it is now going for PS.

>    Use of Node-ID based RSVP Hello messages is implied in a number of
>    cases, e.g., when data and control plan are separated, when TE links
>    are unnumbered. Furthermore, when link level failure detection is

s/data and control plan/the data and control plane

RSVP is expanded in the Abstract after it is used.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-02-15)
This really seems more like a proposed standard than a BCP.  It seems
like there is implementable and testable behavior and that this
specification could advance along the standards track.  I'd like the
authors and possibly WG to consider this.  However I do not think it
appropriate to hold a discuss on this issue for this document.

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()