MPLS Multicast Encapsulations
RFC 5332

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(David Ward) Yes

(Ron Bonica) (was Yes) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-06 for -)
No email
send info
In the Abstract, the doc says:

"Both codepoints can now be used to carry multicast packets."

For accuracy, this should be something like "Both codepoints can now carry both types of traffic."

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-22 for -)
No email
send info
It seems that upstream-label and multicast-encaps drafts are very
difficult to understand without each other; perhaps they should be
merged.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-06 for -)
No email
send info
  Vijay Gurbani provided a Gen-ART review of -07 on 25 Apr 2008.
  Since then -08 and -09 have been posted, yet the minor concerns
  that were pointed out have not been addressed.  Vijay said:

  - S3, second paragraph: s/If Ru and RD/If Ru and Rd/

  - Same paragraph: you may want to consider terminating each numbered
    item except the last one with a comma.

  - S3, the numbered list towards the *end* of the section: You
    may want to consider terminating each numbered item with a period.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-22)
No email
send info
I am wondering whether people have not expressed concerns about making incompatible changes on the wire including usage of semantics of Ethernet codepoints values without obsoleting RFC3032 and RFC4023. It is true that the claim is made that nobody does does MPLS multicast according to RFC 3032 and/or 4023 but how can one be sure that an implementation is not written as we speak, or than another SDO is not building some extension based on what are right now standards-track documents. Would not making this document part of a package that includes also 3032bis and 4023bis documents fixing the deprecated codepoint allocation section be a safer way to avoid potential problems?

Magnus Westerlund No Objection