LDP Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
RFC 7140
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
I am balloting No-Obj based on a quick scan of the document showing no impact on the Internet Area protocols and trust in the RTG ADs doing the right thing.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
I think I grok what this thing is doing at a high level. But the name "hub and spoke multipoint" seems inapt, since there's not actually a hub and spoke topology required, just a reverse path from leaves to root. Wouldn't something like "P2MP with Upstream Path (PUP)" be more accurate? The acronym "FEC" is never expanded, and might cause confusion for readers who like error correction.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
Like Brian, I skimmed it, didn't see any security issues, and am trusting the RTG ADs to do the right thing.
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- What a file name, I bet it'd sound funny if someone tries to pronounce it:-)