Skip to main content

Node Behavior upon Originating and Receiving Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error Messages
RFC 5711

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-09-09)
agree this should not be BCP

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-09-09)
I agree with Robert's discuss.

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-09-10)
I agree that this looks more like Proposed Standard than BCP.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-09-09)
(a) Section 2.2 seems internally inconsistent: in accordance with 2205, a node receiving a 
PathErr message takes no action; in accordance with 3473, a node receiving a PathErr message
with Path_State_Removed in the ERROR_SPEC should take action, but is not required to.

IMHO the 3473 exception is too important to bury halfway through the paragraph with a mild
sentence beginning with "Note that..."

Perhaps the the Path_State_Removed processing merits a new paragraph beginning with: 
"There is one exception where the receiving node MAY change the state.", or something 
along that line.

(b) It might be good to append the references [RFC3209] [RFC3473] to the first sentence in
the Security Considerations, so the readers don't have to guess where those "security
considerations are already specified."