Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
RFC 4874
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
Section 2., paragraph 0: > 2. Each subobject MUST be consistent. If a subobject is not con- > sistent then the node SHOULD return a PathErr with error code > "Routing Problem" and error value "Inconsistent Subobject". Where is consistency defined? Section 2., paragraph 0: > 2. The EXRS MAY be supported. If supported, the same restrictions > as for the XRO apply. Text before the list says "implementation MUST be at least compliant with the following", but this is a MAY.
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
Nit: There are two instances of SLRG that should be SRLG.
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Typographical errors noted in the SecDir Review by Angelos Keromytis:
- in Section 4.2: "inlcuded"
- in Section 5: "some elements appears"
- in A.1: "con- figured", "A1- strict" (spurious whitespace)
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection