Pseudowire Redundancy
draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-09
Yes
(Stewart Bryant)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2012-05-05 for -08)
Unknown
Matthew, thank you: the -08 version is clear, and a pleasure to read. It has fixed all my concerns about the language. Good work.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-07-11)
Unknown
Thanks for the hard work to address my Discuss and Comments
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-27)
Unknown
Thanks for taking care of my DISCUSS/COMMENT
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-05-22 for -08)
Unknown
Note these comments are the same for both draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy and draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit. Much of the Terminology is repeated in draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy and draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit. Can't you just point from on to the other? This uses the TCP MD5 "signature" option [RFC5036]. KARP's hopefully going to get this fixed sooner rather than later. So there's nothing for the authors to do about this otherwise recurring gripe. I'd like to suggest some tweaks to the security considerations section, assuming of course that I've not totally missed the mark: 1st - I think the "LDP extensions" are referred to as options in both RFC 4447 and 5036? 2nd - I think there's only one of them? 3rd - I think you mean control plane not control protocol? How about the following tweaks to the security considerations section: This document uses the TCP MD5 Signature option, as specified in [2], to protect pseudowires. This document has the same security considerations as in the PWE3 control-plane [2]. If you want to future proof the text more maybe: LDP extensions/options that protect pseudowires must be implemented because the security considerations for the bits defined in this document have the same security considerations as the PWE3 control-plane [2].
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -08)
Unknown