GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-09
Yes
(Deborah Brungard)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-14 for -08)
Unknown
Thanks for your work on this draft. I don't see a response to the SecDir review that asks for more clarity in the draft on OSPF Opaque LSAs, mentioned in the security considerations section, but not elsewhere. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg07120.html Could some text be added to help with this request?
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-02-10 for -08)
Unknown
1) Is it really necessary to define a sub-TLV to a sub-TLV? The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is already a sub-TLV of the Link TLV and now you define another sub-sub-TVL for the Frequency availability bitmap. Is it really necessary to have another sub-TLV system here and a new/own registry, given you only define one (!) sub-sub-TLV? I would say you should remove this sub-sub-TLV system and the registry and simply define the bitmap as fixed part of the new Flexi-Grid-LSC sub-TLV. And if you every need another sub-sub-TLV you simply define another ISCD sub-TLV instead. I really don't think the additional complexity of this sub-sub-TLV system and the registry is justified! 2) The Port Label Restriction field as specified in RFC7579 is not a sub-TLV but a field; see section 4.2: "The Port Label Restriction sub-TLV is defined in [RFC7579]. " 3) Section 3 does not specify any requirements (as the title indicates) but only given some quite extensive background information. I don't think this is needed (anymore) for the final published document and could be completely removed or compressed to a few paragraphs in the intro.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown