Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
Comment (2012-03-15 for -06)
(Sorry, timed out so only got to look at the 1st 30 pages
or so so far. Looks like a useful doc though.)
- Sometimes (e.g. for COPS) you say not to bother (which is
good), but other times you don't (e.g. ACAP), which is a pity.
I'd have liked consistent editorialisng like that all over
the place. (Though I realise it might not be easy, but even
knowing "opinions differ" would be useful.)
- FCAPS - where is this "outside the IETF" to which you
refer on p36? If its not a secret place, be good to be
Comment (2012-03-20 for -07)
Thanks for working through my Discuss
Comment (2012-03-21 for -07)
Thank you for addressing my concerns
Comment (2012-03-13 for -06)
I agree with many of Adrian's DISCUSS points.
(1) The last paragraph of section 1.2 should have at
least some reference to an I-D or other document to
indicate what the authors are talking about
(2) Section 3.2 seems odd compared to the rest of the
document, as the RFCs mentioned in this section are
not management standards; several are just
(3) At the end of Section 3.4, it says that there are
two protocols standardized, and then has three bullets
underneath. I think the third bullet should be
separated out, since its relation to OWAMP and TWAMP
is not clearly explained here.