Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element Architecture
RFC 7399
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
Thanks for making changes to how draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is used/referenced in the document, and I'm convinced that it is now an informational reference only. I suggest one change to make it clear that the relevant terminology is adequately explained here, and that the stateful-pce draft is only for additional information: OLD Readers are assumed to be thoroughly familiar with terminology defined in [RFC4655], [RFC4726], [RFC5440], [RFC5623], [RFC6805], and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. NEW Readers are assumed to be thoroughly familiar with terminology defined in [RFC4655], [RFC4726], [RFC5440], [RFC5623], and [RFC6805]. More information about terms related to stateful PCE can be found in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
Thanks for updating the security considerations and including references to other documents that discuss the considerations.
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
good document!
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Recuse