Pseudowire Redundancy on the Switching Provider Edge (S-PE)
draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-10-22)
No email
send info
(I also agree with Robert that the document is fairly hard to read. This isn’t
the first document in the IETF to be like that, and I didn’t feel that this
issue is discuss-worthy.)

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-10-19 for -02)
No email
send info
Just some very minor nits:

- section 1, 2nd paragraph:

s/provide/providing

- section 3 and subsections:

Several occurrences of "Active Preferential Forwarding status bit" need a leading "the".

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2015-10-19 for -02)
No email
send info
No objection regarding the publication of the document.
However, based on Linda Dunbar's OPS DIR review, and the Jimmy's answer, a new revision is needed with the agreed changed (see the OPS DIR list for the details)

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2015-10-21 for -02)
No email
send info
Linda Dunbar provided the opsdir review.

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2015-10-19 for -02)
No email
send info
Just total nit-level stuff here: unexpanded abbreviations that should be expanded.  

-- Abstract --
PE, T-PE
(Because the abstract has to stand alone.)

-- Section 2.1 --
CE

-- Section 3.1 --
AC

-- Section 4 --
CC, VCCV

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2015-10-19 for -02)
No email
send info
It is not clear that the solution applies to both static and dynamic MS-PWs.  The Introduction talks about reusing the signaling in RFC6870, but it is not until Section 3 when RFC6478 is mentioned that I realized the applicability.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection