Skip to main content

Managed Objects for Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet Switched Networks (PSNs)
draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-mib-11

Yes

(Mark Townsley)

No Objection

(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2008-07-02) Unknown
1. The introduction has text about comments to be made to the WG and the WG list. I believe that this text needs to be dropped, as the future RFC may be longer lived than the WG

2. In Section 3, s/[SATOP] draft/[SATOP]

3. Last paragraph in Section 3 uses RFC2119 keywords. I wonder whether this is appropriate, as the text describes terminology and functionality defined someplace else and not in this document, 

4. The procedure described in Section 7 ends with verifying that pwTDMConfigError returns no error. What actions are being taken by a manager and by the agent if there are errors reported in this object? Is the procedure repeated from start, from some place within the algorithm, do any entries need to be cleared and configured again? 

5. The document makes a non-consistent use of the UNITS clause - it is defined for some objects it is not for other. 

6. The DESCRIPTION clause of pwTDMValidDayIntervals defines the minimal value as 1. Why is then the syntax allowing for 0, is there any special significance?
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-07-01) Unknown
Editorial suggestions from Scott Kelly's SecDir review:
- I would suggest adding a sentence to the introduction which 
articulates the background the reader is assumed to have, for 
example, what RFCs they are expected to be conversant with, 
in order to understand the content of this document.
- TDM should be expanded with first use
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-07-02) Unknown
support Dan's discuss
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2008-07-01) Unknown
As noted in Scott Kelly's secdir review and Dan's preliminary discuss, the replacement of
parentheses with double quotes is somewhat confusing.  Since Dan is already holding a discuss,
I am balloting NoObj but would like to note that I support Dan's position.