Requirements for Multicast in Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Ross Callon) Yes
(Mark Townsley) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Comment (2006-10-09 for -)
My preference would be to use plain English instead of RFC 2119 language.
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
Comment (2006-10-11 for -)
Section 2.1., paragraph 7: > Forwarding table" as defined in [RFC4364], and "VR" to "Virtual > Router" as defined in [VRs] terminology. Missing Reference: 'VRs' is mentioned on line 792, but not defined Section 2.1., paragraph 14: > Rendez-vous point ([PIM-SM]). Missing Reference: 'PIM-SM' is mentioned on line 232, but not defined Section 5.1.12., paragraph 3: > A committed minimum path MTU size SHOULD be provided to customers. > Moreover, since Ethernet LAN segments are often located at first and > last hops, a minimum 1500 bytes IP MTU SHOULD be provided. This requirement will be hard to meet over an Internet with a much lower minimum PMTU. Section 10.2., paragraph 10: > [RFC3446] Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast > Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent Nit: s/Rendevous/Rendezvous/ Section 10.2., paragraph 17: > [RFC3353] Ooms, D., Sales, B., Livens, W., Acharya, A., Griffoul, > F., and F. Ansari, "Overview of IP Multicast in a Multi- > Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Environment", RFC 3353, > August 2002. Unused Reference: 'RFC3353' is defined on line 1502, but not referenced
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
In Section 5.2.10 instead of ' ... SNMP [RFC3411] MIBs (Management Information Bases) ...' Better say: '... SMIv2 [RFC2578] Management Information Base (MIB) modules to be used with SNMP [RFC3411] ... and add a reference to [RFC2578] ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2578.txt.