MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space
RFC 5331

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Ross Callon) Yes

(David Ward) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-08)
No email
send info
I agree with Jari's and especially Lisa's DISCUSSes.

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-07)
No email
send info
I agree with Jari's DISCUSS about handling IPv6.

Stephen Farrell's SecDir review identified a number of places
that were slightly difficult to understand, and could benefit
from some minor editorial changes.

It wouldn't hurt if the security considerations text contained
a pointer to draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-07 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  Section 8 says:
  >
  > The procedure described below applies to LSRs using IPv4 and does
  > not apply to LSRs only using IPv6. A solution for IPv6 LSRs is
  > outside the scope of this document.
  >
  I hope this is a heads up that another document is coming.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2008-05-07)
No email
send info
[I know I'm beating a dead horse, but that is why it's a comment rather
than a discuss.]

While the document does not address procedures for distributing
upstream-assigned labels, there is a section (6) describing the
requirement to do so.  If there are known security considerations
that apply to this requirement it would be useful to say so in
the security considerations.  Inclusion by reference is fine, of course.

Magnus Westerlund No Objection