Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
RFC 6388
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
Please address the following "minor issues" from the GenArt review by Joel Halpern: The definition (section 1.2) of MP2MP LSPs should indicate that even though all nodes are allowed to send on the LSP, there is still a distinguished root node. --- The LDP MP Opaque Value Element extended type (section 2.3, second definition) seems to be gratuitous complexity, adding extra matching cases in the LDP processing path for no stated value. Is there really believed to be a need for more than 254 types of Opaque values? If so, explain it in the document. --- Section 3.3.1.3 begins by describing two methods for installing the upstream path of a MP2MPLSP. After carefully describing both, it says to only and always use the second method. Would it not be better to describe the constraint (that the upstream path must be in place all the way to the root before it claims to be established), and then describe the one method that meets taht. Just don't describe a method that is not to be used.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
"The loops are transient and will disappear as soon as the unicast routing protocol converges. " Strictly they disappear when both the unicast routing converges AND THEN mLDP converges to use the new unicast topology. The point here is that the microloop time will be longer than the unicast routing protocols convergence time. Also one may note that the loop time is usually dominated by LFIB update time.
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; 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) No Objection
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-June-2011 resulted in a small amount of discussion. The need for that discussion indicates to me that the document needs a better introduction. In particular, the reader needs to be told that the same TLVs are being used to reporting on the status of LSPs as well as a downstream device sending a request to an upstream device. In addition, Section 3.3.1.3 describes two methods for installing the upstream path of a MP2MPLSP. After carefully describing both, it says to always use the second method. Would it not be better to describe the constraint (that the upstream path must be in place all the way to the root before it claims to be established), and then describe the one method that meets the requirement.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Are gopher: URIs really appropriate to be used now? (Definition of CRC32)
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain