Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures
RFC 4929

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Brian Carpenter) Yes

Comment (2007-03-18)
No email
send info
s/thatmay/that may

>   In the event that the IETF agrees to develop a solution, the IETF
>    will set milestones that would result in timely delivery of the
>    solution in a timely manner.
Redundant use of "timely" clause.

>    evaluated by the IETF, and MUST deliver a response to the per
s/to the per/ per  ??

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2007-01-11 for -)
No email
send info
I strongly agree with a lot of Sam's concerns.

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2007-01-11 for -)
No email
send info
I agree with many of the concerns expressed in the DISCUSSes written by Ted and Sam. Although the document declares that it adheres to the existing IETF process it seems to be extending it for a specific family of protocols and create new functions and terminology that at best make the process more complex. In particular I do not understand why the procedures in the document do not refer to the existing procedures for BOFs, and why there is a need to define a Caretaker function.

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ross Callon) Recuse

(Bill Fenner) Recuse