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.)