Skip to main content

Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework
RFC 5394

Yes

(Ross Callon)

No Objection

(Chris Newman)
(David Ward)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-04-24)
I am concerned of a number of things with this document. The main issue 
is that it introduces a level of generality that I'm not sure is called
for and brings along with significant complexity. Policy can be applied
and fetched from either clients or servers. Policy can apply to actual 
PC decisions, but also to selection of PCEs. The components necessary 
to implement this architecture are going to be numerous. Does the 
industry really need all this, or was the inclusion of all of these
options part of some compromise?

Also, I was earlier under the impression that COPS is dead, and as a
result it might not be such a good idea to build on it. Maybe that
is not the case?
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()