Skip to main content

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)
RFC 4454

Yes

(Margaret Cullen)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

Abstain


Recuse

(Mark Townsley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2005-08-18)
Gen-ART review comments from Mary Barnes:

Detailed Comments:
-------------------

Security Considerations section is inadequate.  It mentions that other
pwe3 documents would address the security considerations, but there are
no specific references, nor even a basic description of the threats
associated with the scenarios under which this protocol is used.
(similar comment as raised by Ted and Russ). 

Editorial nits:
------------------

- Abstract. First sentence is grammatically incorrect.  I would suggest
adding either "defines", "specifies" or 
"describes" prior to "how" in that sentence. 

- General. First use of acronyms should be expanded, even though they're
listed in the glossary (e.g. SLI in section 1, etc.). 

- Section 3. Second/last sentence. Would read better by changing from:
"  This includes what will happen when an ATM Circuit
   (e.g. AAL5 PVC) is created, deleted or changes state when circuit is
   in alarm."
to: 
 "This includes what will happen when an ATM Circuit
   (e.g. AAL5 PVC) is created, deleted or changes state when circuit
state is

   in alarm.

[At least I think the statement is referring to the circuit being in a
stat of ALARM.]
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2005-08-17)
  The 2nd paragraph of the Introduction begins:
  >
  > Any ATM specific AVPs or other L2TP constructs for ATM pseudo-wire
  > (ATMPW) support will be defined here as well.
  >
  s/will be/are/
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain (2005-08-18)
This document is right: it is incomprehensible without a deeper
understanding of the L2TP spec than I have.  While I'm not going to
block it on that point, I cannot evaluate well enough to enter a no
objection vote.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse ()