Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies
RFC 5468

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(David Ward) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-01-08)
No email
send info
The document should very early (in abstract or introduction) say that
much of the interesting content (results of the simulation) is only in
the PDF version, not the ASCII version. (Currently, the reader 
discovers he/she is reading the wrong version only in Section 5.)

From idnits: 
== The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have 
   RFC 2119 boilerplate text.
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te' is defined 
   on line 427, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching' is defined on 
   line 434, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp 
   has been published as RFC 5152
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te has 
   been published as RFC 5151
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching has been 
   published as RFC 5150
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 
   3784 (Obsoleted by RFC 5305)

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2009-01-03)
No email
send info
  A few nits were notd by Spencer Dawkins during his Gen-ART Review:

    s/Virutal/Virtual/

    s/Eventhough/Even though/

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection