Layer 1 VPN Basic Mode
draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-05
Yes
(David Ward)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-05)
Unknown
The document could perhaps use a slightly longer explanation of how the PE, when it receives a RSVP message, determines which L1VPN it's associated with (since apparently the RSVP messages are not necessarily sent over the CE-PE link identified by CPI/PPI, and the L1VPN is not uniquely identified by CE-CC-Addr/PE-CC-Addr). Sandy's SecDir review also identified a number of places that would benefit from some clarification of the text, and provided editorial comments that should be taken into acccount.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-07)
Unknown
In Section 1, you say: As with L3VPNs, there are protocol options to be made with auto-discovery. Did you mean protocol choices? In Setion 2, you say: Since the mechanisms specified in this document use GMPLS as the signaling mechanism, and since GMPLS applies to both SONET/SDH (TDM) and Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces, it results that L1VPN services include (but are not restricted) to Lambda Switch Capable or TDM-based equipment. Did you mean "it follows that"?
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-06)
Unknown
There has been a dialogue between Sandy Murphy and Adrian Farrel that was begun by Sandy's SecDir Review. The Security Considerations in this document are very sparse, saying essentially that because the matching of customer channels to provider ports is assumed to be done correctly and out of band there are no security considerations. However, the dialogue between Sandy and Adrian shows that there is actually more to say. I support the DISCUSS position that Pasi has entered ...
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-07)
Unknown
Note that I support Pasi's discuss wrt security considerations. One nit: s 4.1, 1st sentence s/there/their/