[Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 15 June 2016 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D33212D511; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.22.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160615230443.26078.47168.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:04:43 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/aBPV8fZxoj0VJONMye9x9XNAMb4>
Cc: teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Subject: [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:04:43 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is recommended that domain/layer boundary policies take the implications of releasing SRLG information into consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling." Eh, that's a bit opaque for me at least. Can you say a bit more about what those implications might be and how one might take them into account, and why that doesn't need to be mentioned in the document? I'm asking since there is a bit of a breach of the blood-brain barrier going on here (as is ack'd in the draft) and while it's hard to envisage that much going wrong if providers expose this information, I guess there might easily be something too subtle for this particular reader:-)
- Re: [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- [Teas] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ie… Stephen Farrell