Extensions to GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful Restart
RFC 5063

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

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2007-01-22 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Minor open issue from gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies:

My remaining comment relates to the transient situation that could occur as a result of the (hopefully rare) eventuality noted in the last para of s4.4.2, where the node switches from using the new RecoveryPath mechanism back to using the old mechanism part way through recovery (possibly because of a failure downstream?)  My query related to whether the partial state from RecoveryPath messages should be used at all in this case.  I was unclear as to whether there could be a conflict between the partial state and information received after the switch.  The authors claim that the clear up at the end of the Recovery Period (s4.5.2.3) deals with the problem but I am not quite convinced.  I would like to see some justification as to why there is not a problem - I presume the occasion where the switch might occur is when a path switch was in progress resulting in a downstream node change, maybe?  This is an awkward corner case clearly but I think it deserves a sentence (or some real explanaion of why it does not result in a conflict).  A similar issue applies to s5.2.1.

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection