Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment Monitoring
RFC 8256
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
OPS DIR review from Jon Mitchell: Document is Ready with Nits. I share the concern that it's not totally clear upfront this is a requirements versus solution document. There is also not much in the way of requirements of notification or how to signal back to the operator that a fault has occurred, but this may be OK if whatever solution would meet the requirements of this draft will include such text or rely on existing mechanisms discussed in RFC6371.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Stewart Bryant's Gen-ART review comments deserve more discussion, in my opinion. Perhaps that response is in the way of showing that Stewart is wrong, or that the working group has knowingly chosen a particular path, or that some clarification or changes are needed in the document. But substantial comments need to be addressed in some fashion, and I don't feel we're quite there yet. But I also didn't see much discussion on my e-mail search, it is possible of course that discussion happened without me seeing it (I'm not on the MPLS WG list). All that being said, I held a Discuss position as a request for discussion, but I did not plan to hold on to it beyond the initial telechat, and I have now cleared (also considering that I'm off the IESG in a couple of days).
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
I don't see a value in publishing this document in the RFC series. Btw. the shepherd write up still says this doc is standards track. Minor comments: - The classification into M(andatory) and O(ptional) is not consistent with the use of MUST and SHOULD. - The first sentence in the intro should use a lower case 'must'. - Sections 2.2 and 5. could be removed.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Abstain
I do not see the value of this document as an RFC - particularly absent any work on a solution after 5 years.
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) Abstain
Abstain for same reason as Alia.