Skip to main content

Use of the Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) List for Synchronized Dependent Path Computations
RFC 6007

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

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

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

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

No Objection (2010-04-08)
Section 4.2 last paragraph, immediately preceding the SVEC-list:
    Why is #Z omitted from the parenthetical?

Section 5.1: if the PCE can't handle the associated SVEC objects it "may
send a PCErr message".  This implies it might construct the paths
anyway.  Is there a mechanism to inform the PCC that the requested
associations were not considered during path construction?