GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration
draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-13
Yes
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
(2014-02-26)
Unknown
IANA issues have been discussed and resolved to my satisfaction
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-02-25)
Unknown
Than you for addressing my DISCUSS and comments in version -13.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -12)
Unknown
lools like -12 addressed outstanding opsdir comments.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-22 for -12)
Unknown
Thanks for clearly identifying the new security consideration and explaining how it can be mitigated.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-22 for -12)
Unknown
This is a well written document and I just have a few nits that you might consider. There were a number of terms that as far as I could see were unexpanded on first use and are not "well known". I picked up DWDM, RSVP-TE, LSP, WSON, TDM, SDH/SONET. Please can I suggest an quick abbreviation scrub. With the text "the ADMIN_STATUS Object is specified for RSVP-TE in [RFC3473]. " This ref should go a little earlier in the para, when you first use the term "If this is not possible, a PathErr SHOULD be sent " and "a ResvErr may be sent" Presumable these are "messages" or "responses" 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OAM Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: indicates a new type: the OAM Configuration TLV (IANA to assign). Is the length syntax well known in this context?