IPv6 Flow Label Specification
RFC 6437
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
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"
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
A reference to draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-00 would seem appropriate since they seek to achieve the same though at different layers.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection