Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
RFC 7150

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-17)
No email
send info
For what it is worth, I agree with Robert Spark's Gen-ART review comment that some highlighting of the interoperability challenges of vendor-specific options might have been useful. I don't think it is a big problem in this case (and this seems to be confirmed by Adrian's reply) but some similar RFCs have talked about it. If you want to take a look at what has been done in the past, there's text in RFC 5094 Section 1 last two paragraphs, RFC 4243 Section 3 last paragraph, RFC 3588 Section 11.1.1 two last sentences, for instance. The general thrust is emphasising the local applicability of vendor information, encouraging documentation of vendor's information elements, and recommending standardisation when there's more general interest for the information in question.

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-18)
No email
send info
Thanks for the Management Considerations section.

Regards, the OPS AD.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Abstain) Recuse