A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
RFC 4726

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2006-04-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
> that they are not capable of estbalishing LSPs.
s/estbalishing/establishing/

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-04-24 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
If this is a framework and not a PS, why does it need normative
MUSTs and SHOULDs?

-----
Nits from Gen-ART review by Gonzalo Camarillo

The Copyright Notice on the first page should be updated: remove "All
Rights Reserved".

Acronyms should be expanded the first time they appear in the draft. In
particular, MPLS should be expanded in the title.

Nit at the end of Section  2.5:
OLD:
capable of estbalishing LSPs
NEW:
capable of establishing LSPs
              ^^

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Comment (2006-04-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Some things I noted while reading the draft:

 - should reference some document (RFC4206?) when it discusses LSP hierarchies.
 - expand acronyms IGP, EGP

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-30)
No email
send info
Cleared pending rfc-editor note with agreed text.n

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-04-26 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 3.1 mentions the possibility of path computation to be performed by offline tools or by a network planner with the resultant path being supplied to the ingress LSR as part of the TE LSP or service request. There is no mention however in Section 6 - Security Considerations about the security implications of having the information needed for path computation available to a offline tool (confidentiality, authetication) and of supplying configuration information accross multiple administrative domains (authentication, authorization, non-repudiation).

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection