A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM
RFC 6559

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

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-01)
No email
send info
- Presumably if this experiment is a success then some method of
doing automated key management would be required for a successor
standards track document. I think just noting that in the
security considerations section would be good.

- I wondered why TLS wasn't considered as an additional option.
Be good to explain why, esp if there's a reason it wouldn't work
well enough.

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-02)
No email
send info
s3.1 and s3.2: Not being a PIM expert, I tripped up over how IPv6 addresses could fit in to TCP Connection ID and SCTP Connection ID.  I kind of had to guess where I'd find more information about this, so a pointer to the xoring mechanism in RFC 4061 would have helped a lot.