Skip to main content

Anycast-RP Using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
RFC 4610

Yes

(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)

No Objection

(Allison Mankin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(David Kessens)
(Scott Hollenbeck)

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

Alex Zinin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-01-27)
Non-blocking comments from Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern:

minor:
    I am not sure calling section 2.0 "Requirements" is a good use of naming.  Section 2 is a really useful section.  It describes what you are trying to do nicely and clearly.  But "requirements" it isn't.  "Overview"would do nicely as a title.

    It seems to require interesting management control to achieve the conditions required to mix non-supporting RPs into this, as described in section 4.0.  I understand that technically, as long as the non-supporting RP has only receivers, it works.  But a little more explication as to when / how this can be ensured might be appropriate.

    Isn't it a bit odd for the authors to thank themselves?  The work they are acknowledging is worth noting (the authors did two prototypes of the draft.)  But different wording might be nice. 

[BC: "The authors thank each other..."?]
David Kessens Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-01-31)
  Section 3.0 says:
  >
  > RP1 is configured with RP2 and RP3's IP address.
  >
  I suggest the following rewording:
  >
  > RP1 is configured with the IP addresses of RP2 and RP3.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-01-31)
The draft says :

  o An IP address is chosen to use as the RP address. This address is
     statically configured, or distributed using a dynamic protocol, to
     all PIM routers throughout the domain.


Later requirements indicate that this is inserted into the unicast
routing system, so this is a unicast address.  It might be useful to
specify that here.  

It might also be useful to specify whether any events
in the unicast routing system have an impact on this mechanism
either in set-up or in later operation.