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)
No email
send info
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.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection