Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
RFC 6511
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
1) The abstract contains the RFC2119 conventions text, including references. This should be in the main body of the text, not the abstract. 2) in 2.4, I think the text could be clearer that the notify message only supplements the path error. It is not used INSTEAD of the path error message. 3) IANA is requested to assign a new error subcode, but the text (2.4) never mentions the use of the IANA-assigned value.
(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
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
<an absolute nit> The RFC editor might do this for you but I can't remember: to avoid a trivial errata (and yes we get these) please consider re-ordering the RFC references numbers to be lowest # to highest #. </an absolute nit>
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
RRO is used a couple of times before being expanded The secdir reviewer asked a question [1] to which I didn't see an answer but it doesn't look like it warrants a discuss. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg02855.html
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection