Use of the Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) List for Synchronized Dependent Path Computations
RFC 6007
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
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?