Skip to main content

Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
RFC 6511

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Dan Romascanu)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-08-23)
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

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-08-23)
<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

No Objection (2011-08-22)
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

No Objection ()