Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in Tunnels
RFC 6438
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 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) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with the DISCUSS from Pete Resnick that this seems like a Standards Track document, not a BCP.
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
I found this document clear and hope it has the impact the group intends. I support Pete's discuss though - why did the group choose BCP as the intended status for this document?
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
Maybe add (e.g., by using IPsec between the two tunnel end-points) to the end of the 2nd sentence in the security considerations. Just to provide an example of how it might be done.
(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) No Objection