IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-08
Yes
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-10-03)
Unknown
I still haven't memorized routing terminology so I exercised the terminology section. FYI: - The terminology expansion of IS-IS LSP confused me. Why is LSP "Link State PDU" here and "Label Stitched Path" everywhere else?. - I assume PCED is PCE-Domain -- only the latter is expanded in terminology - TLV not defined or referenced (though I realize it's a very well-known TLA in the field) Section 3.2 - flooding scope through "L1 area" and "L2 sub-domain" -- should this be part of terminology or an explanation referenced? Section 4.1 - If two PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLVs appear, " only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored". With this requirement, what use is it to allow two of PCE-ADDRESS? If one can be IPv6 and one IPv4 but only the first one MUST be processed, then the other one is useless. thx -- Lisa
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-10-03)
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-10-03)
Unknown
In section 4.2: Is consistent computation of the PrefL, PrefR, PrefS and PrefY field values important? If so, are we depending upon common administration of all PCEs? Without a more detailed algorithm, it seems likely a PCC could discover a set of PCEs that used very different algorithms for setting the preference values.