Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 4875

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

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-08 for -)
No email
send info
Did the WG discuss scaling limits? Section 10 indicates how
multipoint signaling can be cut up into smaller pieces, but
doesn't really give a sense of where the scaling limit is.

This document appears to use ABNF without a reference.

Nit from Gen-ART reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani:
S8.2 - s/to the value, that/to the value that/

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-11)
No email
send info
Section 6.2.1., paragraph 1:
>    Specifically, in the case where the only change being sent in a Resv
>    message is in one or more SRRO objects, the branch node SHOULD
>    transmit the Resv message only after a delay time has passed since
>    the transmission of the previous Resv message for the same session.
>    This delayed Resv message SHOULD include SRROs for all branches. A
>    suggested value for the delay time is thirty seconds. Specific
>    mechanisms for Resv message throttling and delay timer settings are
>    implementation dependent and are outside the scope of this document.

  Can a lower bound be identified below which delay times are not
  useful? ("A suggested value for the delay time is thirty seconds, and
  delay times SHOULD generally be longer than X", where X is that lower

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection