Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 4124

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2004-12-22)
No email
send info
The note which makes clear that this is not DiffServ awareness but something different
has cleared my Discuss.  Transport needs to continue to pay attention to this protocol.

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-09-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Lucy Lynch, Gen-ART

Her review indicated a number of places in proto-07 where it was unclear whether the authors were intending 2119 keyword meaning (MUST) where the text said "must". Review forwarded to authors and AD.

HTA: Within my limited time and understanding, this seems sensible.

Philosophical sigh:
I distrust all numbers except 1, 2 and "many".
This document sanctifies the number 8.
I hope they know what they're doing.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2004-04-13)
No email
send info
  -diff-te-mam-03 and -diff-te-mar-04 and -diff-te-russian-06 say that
  security considerations related to the use of DS-TE are discussed in
  draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-07.  However, the security considerations
  in this document points to RFC 2475, without adding much additional
  insight.  Please remove the additional level of indirection.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2004-04-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Many of the <iana-note> sections are actually requests to the RFC editor to update
values upon assignment.  I don't think this requires any change to the document,
but I thought I'd note it so that the purpose was clear to our RFC Editor liaison.

(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info