Skip to main content

Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels
RFC 6424

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
David Harrington Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2011-08-09)
in 3.2.1, s/the node needs to return a different Return Code/Return SubCode for each downstream. / the node needs to return a Return Code/Return SubCode for each downstream./ (I suspect that each return code may not need to be different)
in 3.4, "The Downstream Mapping TLV has been deprecated." should this be "This document deprecates the Downstream Mapping TLV"? If another document specified the deprecation, please provide a reference.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-08-06)
Very minor editorial suggestions:

Section 1:

   This documents describes methods for performing LSP-Ping (specified
   in [RFC4379] traceroute over MPLS tunnels.

change to "This document [...]"; is there a right paren missing?

In the next sentence "in case where" sounds wrong; perhaps use
"in the case where" for both parts of the sentence?

Section 3.3.1:

   MAY be include [...]

change to "MAY be included"



Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-08-11)
I see that this defines a "NIL FEC" that can be used to hide
information, which is just fine. That made me wonder though
if this is only needed here or maybe also elsewhere (e.g. 
in draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping)? Or, perhaps other MPLS
ping functions need some equivalent? (Just checking.)
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()