Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE
RFC 4920

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

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2007-03-05)
No email
send info
Missing Reference: 'RC3473' is mentioned on line 202, but not defined
  Typo
Missing Reference: 'RFC4373' is mentioned on line 537, but not defined
  Typo?
Missing Reference: 'RFC4201' is mentioned on line 918, but not defined
Unused Reference: 'G8080' is defined on line 1500, but not referenced

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2007-03-07)
No email
send info
This document lacks any considerations of manageability and operational deployment. One of the issues that concerns me is the level of supplementary signalling traffic introduced in a network by implementing and deploying crankback signaling extensions and whether this may become a scalability concern. I would like to hear an answer about this and if necessary to have text added in the document that addresses this issue.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection