Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM) Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN)
RFC 5086

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-11)
No email
send info
  Why is this going for Informational not PS?


Section 0, paragraph 5:
>  [RFC3985] and [RFC3931 ] respectively.

  Missing Reference: 'RFC 3931' is mentioned on line 1065, but not
  defined


Section 13., paragraph 1:
>  [RFC 2401] Kent S., Atkinson, R., Security Architecture for the
>  Internet Protocol, RFC 2401, November 1998

  Unused Reference: 'RFC 2401' is defined on line 1230, but not
  referenced

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-11)
No email
send info
  Please replace the reference with in the Abstract.  It should say
  something like "as specified in RFC xxxx"

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-12)
No email
send info
This document follows the requirements and architecture defined in RFC3916 and RFC4197. RFC3916 includes in Section 6 a statement that 'Each PWE3 approach SHOULD provide some mechanisms for network operators to manage the emulated service' and then goes into more detailed requirements about how such mechanisms could be implemented. I am surprised about the lack of any managemement or operational considerations section in this document in order to show how the requirements in Section 6 of RFC3916 are supposed to be addressed.

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection