Skip to main content

MPLS Multicast Encapsulations
RFC 5332

Yes

(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ron Bonica)
(Tim Polk)

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

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-22)
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?

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-06)
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."

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

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

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Yes) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-06)
  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.

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()