Skip to main content

Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions
draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-04

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-11) Unknown
I see Section 1.3 manageability in RFC 6388. Good.
Please add a sentence/a new section such as this one:

    Section 1.3 "manageability" in RFC 6388 stresses the need to develop an additional MIB module, next to RFC3815, 
    to support P2MP in LDP.  LDP multipoint extension for targeted LDP should also be covered by this MIB module.
Brian Haberman 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

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-12) Unknown
- The write-up says an implementation poll was sent out
and results would be in "soon" - are they in?

- The security considerations just says "nothing new here"
which is always a bit offputting for a SEC AD:-) Can you
explain why there is nothing new here? (I didn't have time
to trace all the references sorry, and I'm not asking that
you put in new text but do wonder if there's an easy
answer to the question.)