Skip to main content

Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)
RFC 4553

Yes

(Mark Townsley)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Russ Housley)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2006-02-17)
The new congestion section is excellent.

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-12-15)
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

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2005-12-13)

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

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

No Objection ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2005-12-14)
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

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()