MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space
RFC 5331
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection
I agree with Jari's and especially Lisa's DISCUSSes.
(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
I agree with Jari's DISCUSS about handling IPv6. Stephen Farrell's SecDir review identified a number of places that were slightly difficult to understand, and could benefit from some minor editorial changes. It wouldn't hurt if the security considerations text contained a pointer to draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework.
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 8 says: > > The procedure described below applies to LSRs using IPv4 and does > not apply to LSRs only using IPv6. A solution for IPv6 LSRs is > outside the scope of this document. > I hope this is a heads up that another document is coming.
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
[I know I'm beating a dead horse, but that is why it's a comment rather than a discuss.] While the document does not address procedures for distributing upstream-assigned labels, there is a section (6) describing the requirement to do so. If there are known security considerations that apply to this requirement it would be useful to say so in the security considerations. Inclusion by reference is fine, of course.