Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
RFC 7510

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Comment (2015-01-21 for -10)
No email
send info
Thanks for clarifying my concerns that we aren't missing a case of upstream-assigned labels in a unicast tunnel.  We only really need upstream-assigned labels if the tunnel itself is multi-access.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2015-01-21 for -10)
No email
send info
Thanks to all involved for working through the issues with congestion and zero checksums. I'm happy to ballot Yes on this version (while watching Martin's Discuss out of the corner of my eye).

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2015-01-22 for -10)
No email
send info
- An editorial detail in the abstract. Take it or leave it
   The MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation technology must only be deployed within a
   single network (with a single network operator) or networks of an
   adjacent set of co-operating network operators where traffic is
   managed to avoid congestion, rather than over the Internet where
   congestion control is required.

We rarely see specifications ("must" sentences) in abstracts.
Do you want to say something like: 
   The MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation applicability is for networks where 
   traffic is managed to avoid congestion, rather than over the Internet 
   where congestion control is required.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2015-01-21 for -10)
No email
send info
Thank you for the extensive discussion of the UDP zero checksum over IPv6 issue.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-01-21 for -10)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-02-02)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my concern.

(Adrian Farrel) Recuse