Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
RFC 6388

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

Comment (2011-07-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
"The loops are transient and will disappear as soon as the unicast routing protocol converges. "

Strictly they disappear when both the unicast routing converges AND THEN mLDP converges to use the new unicast topology. The point here is that the microloop time will be longer than  the unicast routing protocols convergence time. Also one may note that the loop time is usually dominated by LFIB update time. 

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2011-07-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Please address the following "minor issues" from the GenArt review by Joel Halpern:

The definition (section 1.2)  of MP2MP LSPs should indicate that even though all nodes are allowed to send on the LSP, there is still a distinguished root node.

---

The LDP MP Opaque Value Element extended type (section 2.3, second definition) seems to be gratuitous complexity, adding extra matching cases in the LDP processing path for no stated value.  Is there really believed to be a need for more than 254 types of Opaque values?  If so, explain it in the document.

---

Section 3.3.1.3 begins by describing two methods for installing the upstream path of a MP2MPLSP.  After carefully describing both, it says to only and always use the second method.  Would it not be better to describe the constraint (that the upstream path must be in place all the way to the root before it claims to be established), and then describe the one method that meets taht.  Just don't describe a method that is not to be used.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-14)
No email
send info
Are gopher: URIs really appropriate to be used now? (Definition 
of CRC32)

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 23-June-2011 resulted in a
  small amount of discussion.  The need for that discussion indicates
  to me that the document needs a better introduction.  In particular,
  the reader needs to be told that the same TLVs are being used to
  reporting on the status of LSPs as well as a downstream device
  sending a request to an upstream device.

  In addition, Section 3.3.1.3 describes two methods for installing
  the upstream path of a MP2MPLSP.  After carefully describing both, it
  says to always use the second method.  Would it not be better to
  describe the constraint (that the upstream path must be in place all
  the way to the root before it claims to be established), and then
  describe the one method that meets the requirement.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) Abstain