Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-11-01)
No email
send info
Please consider whether [REDUNDANCY] really needs to be a normative 
reference. I don't think you use it in that way.

---

Section 6 and its sub-section could be more careful about whether PWs or
PW segments are switched.

---

4385 and 4447 are messed up in the references section.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-11-03)
No email
send info
1. I support Russ's DISCUSS

2. [closed]

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-11-03 for -)
No email
send info
Ari Keränen helped me review this specification and he too was concerned about Section 5.3 (PW OAM status message transmit and receive):

[...] the PW OAM
message containing the PW status TLV needs to be transmitted
repeatedly to ensure reliable message delivery. [...]
A PW OAM message containing a PW status TLV with a new status bit set
or reset, will be transmitted immediately by the PE. The PW OAM
message will then be repeated twice more at an initial interval of
one second.

The message is always sent 3 times during the first 3 seconds? How about
ACKs?

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-31 for -)
No email
send info
These would probably all get fixed by the RFC editor, but I noticed them so I included them here.

1) Header should be:

  Updates: 5585 (if approved)

2) There's a "MUST not" in s5.3 - is that supposed to be "MUST NOT"?

3) Expiry date in status of memo section doesn't match the date in the header.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-10-30 for -)
No email
send info
- section 2: s/two Provider Edge (PE)/two Provider Edge (PE)
devices/?

- section 2: s/and [REDUNDANCY].../and elsewhere [REDUNDANCY]/

- 5.3 1st para: if an unknown or malformed TLV is received but
in a message containing >1 TLV, does that imply anything about
the other TLVs in that message?

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-11-02 for -)
No email
send info
I support Russ's DISCUSS.