Redundancy Mechanism for Inter-domain VPLS Service
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-07

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

The shepherd write-up says that this is BCP.  The draft and data-tracker status say Standards Track.
This needs to be clarified before it progresses.

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

Section 7:
"In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
   The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a well managed and
   highly monitored network.  This should be ensured by the operator."

I understand what is meant here, but it might be good to be a bit more specific about the desired monitoring given recent discussions and RFCs about pervasive monitoring. I would suggest something like:

"In this document, ICCP protocol is deployed between two PEs or ASBRs.
   The two PEs or ASBRs should only be connected by a network that is well managed and
   whose service levels and availability are highly monitored.  This should be ensured by the operator."

Section 9:

s/author/authors/ 
(I assume.)

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

Thanks for working through the SecDir review.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

It would be nice if this document contained a clear definition of what is meant by "node redundancy".   I think this is referring to PE nodes, but walking back to RFC 3985 I don't find a definition for that term, but as I progress through later RFCs I start to see "PE device" and later "PE node."  I suspect that this is a well-understood term of art, but for the sake of readers who are trying to find their way through these documents for the first time it would help to make that clear.   This stuck out for me because I at first interpreted "node" in the usual way that we use it in IETF protocols, and that definition of "node" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of this document.

I'm not in love with the sketchiness of the solution to state flapping described in section 7, but I assume that people who know more about this than I are satisfied with it, so I will say no more on the subject.