IETF conflict review for draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
Comment (2014-03-11 for -00)
The IESG requests that this document is not published as an RFC before draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu and draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates which, along with RFC 6378 contain an IETF consensus approach to the same topic. ===== Substantive notes Section 7.1 This document cites a specific code point value from an Experimental range. This is against the spirit of RFC 3692. I suggest that the value 0x7FFA be replaced with a tage such as "XXXX" and that the descriptive note be changed to read: As with all experimental deployments, the value of XXXX must be chosen by the network operator and configured on all implementations. As described by [RFC3692] implementations should allow configuration of this value. ===== Editorial notes The ISE is requested to update the Abstract to indicate the RFC numbers assigned to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu and draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates. --- Abstract para 2 s/has been/was/ Ditto Introduction para 2 --- I think it would be helpful if this document included a reference to RFC 5654 from the 5th paragraph of the Introduction. --- Secton 7.1 shows "DEFAULT" in upper case. This usage of upper case has no specific meaning and I suggest changing to lower case.