Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF
RFC 4915

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
My no-obj is based on the assumption David's discuss is addressed.  I
strongly agree that ruling the forwarding plane issues out of scope is
a bad idea.  I think the routing area really needs to sign up to
dealing with the forwarding considerations for this and for the
similar ISIS document.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-13)
No email
send info
Comments received the Ops Directorate by Pekka Savola:

Some editorial comments:
- The document should state that it Updates the OSPF spec, RFC 2328.
- Abstract also mentions 'different classes of service based on
  flexible criteria, or an in-band network management [topologies]'
  which are not mentioned anymore later in the draft; this should
  probably be removed from the abstract or applicability expanded in
  Introduction or some suitable section.
- "[M-ISIS] describes a similar mechanism for ISIS." after talking
  about ToS as multi-topology hasn't been even mentioned yet; better
  place would be after the second paragraph of Introduction.

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-12-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

1. It would be useful that the statement in the Introduction 'TOS based routing as described in [TOS-OSPF] was never deployed and was subsequently deprecated.' is backed-up by a reference. The appropriate reference is I believe Annex G.10 in RFC2178

2. I am surprised by the absence of a Manageability and Operations Considerations section, or of any reference to such considerations in the document. There are at least two good reasons beyond the usual ones for such consideration to be included: 

- the document lists the creation of a dedicated topology for network management as one of the principal applications of OSPF MT routing

- the PROTO write-up mentions that 'there may be implications on the MIB'

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection