Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-15
Yes
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
(Wesley Eddy)
Abstain
(Dan Romascanu)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-07-11)
Unknown
Please address the following "minor issues" from the GenArt review by Joel Halpern: The definition (section 1.2) of MP2MP LSPs should indicate that even though all nodes are allowed to send on the LSP, there is still a distinguished root node. --- The LDP MP Opaque Value Element extended type (section 2.3, second definition) seems to be gratuitous complexity, adding extra matching cases in the LDP processing path for no stated value. Is there really believed to be a need for more than 254 types of Opaque values? If so, explain it in the document. --- Section 3.3.1.3 begins by describing two methods for installing the upstream path of a MP2MPLSP. After carefully describing both, it says to only and always use the second method. Would it not be better to describe the constraint (that the upstream path must be in place all the way to the root before it claims to be established), and then describe the one method that meets taht. Just don't describe a method that is not to be used.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-07-12)
Unknown
"The loops are transient and will disappear as soon as the unicast routing protocol converges. " Strictly they disappear when both the unicast routing converges AND THEN mLDP converges to use the new unicast topology. The point here is that the microloop time will be longer than the unicast routing protocols convergence time. Also one may note that the loop time is usually dominated by LFIB update time.
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-07-12)
Unknown
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-June-2011 resulted in a small amount of discussion. The need for that discussion indicates to me that the document needs a better introduction. In particular, the reader needs to be told that the same TLVs are being used to reporting on the status of LSPs as well as a downstream device sending a request to an upstream device. In addition, Section 3.3.1.3 describes two methods for installing the upstream path of a MP2MPLSP. After carefully describing both, it says to always use the second method. Would it not be better to describe the constraint (that the upstream path must be in place all the way to the root before it claims to be established), and then describe the one method that meets the requirement.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-07-13)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-07-14)
Unknown
Are gopher: URIs really appropriate to be used now? (Definition of CRC32)
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Abstain
Abstain
()
Unknown