Skip to main content

Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) Boundary-Node Behavior for the Controlled Load (CL) Mode of Operation
RFC 6661

Yes

(David Harrington)
(Martin Stiemerling)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(David Harrington; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -12)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -14)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-15 for -12)
See -sm document.

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

No Objection (2012-03-08 for -12)
This document contains quite a bit of requirements terminology. Are we sure that Informational is appropriate? Did the WG consider making this a standards-track Applicability Statement (Section 3.2 of RFC 2026)?

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-15 for -12)
Same comments as draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behavior.

s6: This is similar to Stephen's comment: Because RFC 5559 doesn't use the term "decision point" explicitly, I think that adding some text along the lines of "The decision point is considered to be part of a PCN-node; therefore, the decision point is considered to be trusted for truthful decisions."  This makes it clear that s6.3.1 of RFC 5559 applies.

s4.2.1: I find it a little odd that you say you're paraphrasing two sections but there's 2119 language in this draft where there was none in RFC 5559.  Granted it's mostly MAY this and MAY that so it's not that big of a deal, but there is a MUST and a NOT RECOMMENDED.  Are you really paraphrasing the text from RFC 5559 in that case?

s1.1: Need to add NOT RECOMMENDED to the key words.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-11 for -12)
[SM-Specific] please see my comment on the other one of these...

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)