Recommendation to Use the Ethernet Control Word
draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-07

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

Deborah Brungard Yes

Suresh Krishnan Yes

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-06-19 for -06)
No email
send info
Others have mentioned it seems odd that the document says (in several places) that it recommends use of the CW, but section 4 says "MUST". In particular, the document _title_ says RECOMMENDED in all caps, which could be interpreted as an attempt at normative language.  I think this is likely to confuse at least some readers.

§3: The "recent posting" is from 2016. Calling that "recent" is already a bit dated.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2018-06-20 for -06)
No email
send info
In this text,

  This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
   reasons.  Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet
   MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE
   Registration Authority Committee (RAC).  Secondly, concerns over
   privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which
   assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy.  Random assignment
   results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time
   in eight.

the problem caused by the second case is explained well, but the problem caused by the first reason is not. Would it be correct to say 

  This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
   reasons.  Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet
   MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE
   Registration Authority Committee (RAC).  

Any addresses that start with either of these two values can be misidentified. 

   Secondly, concerns over
   privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which
   assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy.  Random assignment
   results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time
   in eight.

?

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-06-15 for -06)
No email
send info
In Section 4:

   The use of both methods on the same PW is not normally
   necessary and should be avoided unless circumstances require it.

The "both" here refers to ELI and FAT PW (as opposed to CW and
something), right?  Should that be disambiguated or is it clear
enough as-is?

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2018-06-18 for -06)
No email
send info
One minor recommend edit:
Given that this drafts updates RFC4448 to a MUST, maybe s/This document recommends /This document requires/

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2018-06-18 for -06)
No email
send info
The title of the document is "Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED", which hints at the corresponding rfc2119 keyword:

   3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
      may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
      particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
      carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

That seems to be in line with the description in the Introduction: "This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control word in all but exceptional circumstances."

However, the qualified recommendation is that if "both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used".  What are the "exceptional circumstances"?  Should that "MUST" be a "SHOULD"?  Should the use be further qualified?

This comment is not a showstopper, just a minor misalignment.

Adam Roach No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Ignas Bagdonas Recuse