Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10
Yes
(Stewart Bryant)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-01)
Unknown
Please consider whether [REDUNDANCY] really needs to be a normative reference. I don't think you use it in that way. --- Section 6 and its sub-section could be more careful about whether PWs or PW segments are switched. --- 4385 and 4447 are messed up in the references section.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-03)
Unknown
1. I support Russ's DISCUSS 2. [closed]
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-03)
Unknown
Ari Keränen helped me review this specification and he too was concerned about Section 5.3 (PW OAM status message transmit and receive): [...] the PW OAM message containing the PW status TLV needs to be transmitted repeatedly to ensure reliable message delivery. [...] A PW OAM message containing a PW status TLV with a new status bit set or reset, will be transmitted immediately by the PE. The PW OAM message will then be repeated twice more at an initial interval of one second. The message is always sent 3 times during the first 3 seconds? How about ACKs?
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-31)
Unknown
These would probably all get fixed by the RFC editor, but I noticed them so I included them here. 1) Header should be: Updates: 5585 (if approved) 2) There's a "MUST not" in s5.3 - is that supposed to be "MUST NOT"? 3) Expiry date in status of memo section doesn't match the date in the header.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-30)
Unknown
- section 2: s/two Provider Edge (PE)/two Provider Edge (PE) devices/? - section 2: s/and [REDUNDANCY].../and elsewhere [REDUNDANCY]/ - 5.3 1st para: if an unknown or malformed TLV is received but in a message containing >1 TLV, does that imply anything about the other TLVs in that message?
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-02)
Unknown
I support Russ's DISCUSS.