Controlling State Advertisements of Non-negotiated LDP Applications
RFC 7473
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(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 have no objection to the publication of this draft, but I do have a couple of non-blocking comments/questions... 1. The Length field in Section 4.1 is under-specified. One can discern that the Length covers the S bit, the Reserved field, and any included State Advertisement Control Elements from the text, but there is no explicit definition of how to compute the Length field. That lack of definition goes back to RFC 5561 as well. 2. Will 7or 8 App types be sufficient for future expansion? Should the type values in section 4.1 be maintained in a registry?
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
I can think of a whole bunch of circumstances in which advertising my non-interest in receiving messages would be useful. bravo on this being done.
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection