Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)
RFC 4553
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) Yes
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
The new congestion section is excellent.
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
In section 4: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | | PSN and multiplexing layer headers | | ... | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ I suspect it should be (i.e not 18, 26 and 34, but 10, 20 and 30): 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | | PSN and multiplexing layer headers | | ... | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ same to other figures (page 6 and 7) Page 8: RSV (reserved) and FRG (fragmentation) bits (6 to 10) - MUST be set to 0 by the PSN-bound IWF and MUST be ignored by the CE-bound IWF. probably change "(6 to 10)" into "(6 to 9)" to be in sync with figure 3!
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Gen-ART review URL will be http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-03-davies.txt
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
there are two sequence number mechanisms: the control word and the RTP sequence number mechanism. One MAY be used; the other is used. That seems confusing. Why not require one and forbid the other or at least explain why both are permitted. I came very close to holding a discuss because I found it difficult to evaluate whether the TDM control protocol will be able to set up all the configuration parameters for this document. I would recommend having a section that specifies in one place all the things that need to be configured for this type of PW to work. That would make reviewing this document independent of the TDM control document easier. I may hold discusses on similar issues in the future.
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection