Layer Two Tunneling Protocol version 3 - Setup of Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) Pseudowires
draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-07
Yes
(Mark Townsley)
(Ralph Droms)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-06-18)
Unknown
Sorry to raise a late comment...
In section 2.1
1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure-
agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]):
a) Structure-agnostic E1 emulation - 32
b) Structure-agnostic T1 emulation:
i) MUST be set to 24 for the basic mode
ii) MUST be set to 25 for the "Octet-aligned T1"
mode
c) Structure-agnostic E3 emulation - 535
d) Structure-agnostic T3 emulation - 699
I cannot parse this. Does the "MUST" apply to future specifications? I.e., is it an instruction to IANA? Or are you trying to say...
For structure-agnostic emulation, this parameter MUST
be set to one of the following values.
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-01-15)
Unknown
Section 1: > signaling packets). However, the order of the CESoPSN Control Word The acronym needs to be expanded.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-01-15)
Unknown
Section 1., paragraph 3: > Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is > described in []. Missing reference. Section 1., paragraph 2: > Setup of structure-aware TDM pseudowires using encapsulations > described in [RFC5087] has been left for further study. In that case, the document title should reflect that. Maybe "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Setup of Structure-Agnostic TDM Pseudowires"? The RFC Editor will also likely ask you to expand the TDM acronym in the title (and many of the other acronyms you're using.)
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-01-13)
Unknown
There is quite a lot of non-expanded acronyms in the initial part of the document. Especially these ones needs expanding and possibly references: Conventions: In this document we refer to control plane as the packets that contain control information (via AVP) and the mechanism that handles these packets. Section 1: Is RTP (RFC 3550) here? However, the order of the CESoPSN Control Word (CW) and RTP header (if it is used) MUST match between the TDM data and CE signaling packets. Note that there is an acronym overloading here with the word (AVP) as that has one meaning in RTP talk (Audio/video Profile) and another in this document. So RTP AVP in section 2.2 has the potential to be somewhat confusing.
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-04-22)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown