IPv6 Flow Label Specification
RFC 6437

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-13)
No email
send info
A reference to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-00 would seem appropriate since
they seek to achieve the same though at different layers.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-14 for -)
No email
send info
There is no mention of the fact that individual nodes in a network are free to implement different algorithms without impacting the interoperability or function of the network.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(David Harrington) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-12 for -)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 6-Jul-2011 points out one typo in
  section 3, fifth paragraph: "An alternative approach is to to use"

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-12 for -)
No email
send info
Does this document intend to classify RFC 3697 as Historic?

The keyword boilerplate does not include "NOT RECOMMENDED", but the text does (in Section 3).

An informative or perhaps even normative reference to BCP 106 (RFC 4086) might be in order regarding the assignment of flow label values.

An informative reference to RFC 4732 might be in order regarding denial of service.

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection