Domain Subobjects for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
RFC 7897
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
In Section 5.1, to be consistent with how IANA prefers registry URLs to be specified, please remove the string "/pcep.xhtml" from the three IANA URLs.
(Ben Campbell; 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) No Objection
Thank you for working out new text for the security considerations section from the SecDir review. The new text is significantly better. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06179.html
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
In this text: The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by a legacy implementation. If one of the subobjects is received in a PCEP object that does not understand it, it will behave as described in Section 3.4.3. I think something is confused. Do PCEP objects understand subobjects? Or is this The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by legacy implementations. If a legacy implementation receives one of the subobjects that it does not understand in a PCEP object, the legacy implementation will behave as described in Section 3.4.3. correct?
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection