Layer 1 VPN Basic Mode
RFC 5251

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-05)
No email
send info
The document could perhaps use a slightly longer explanation of how
the PE, when it receives a RSVP message, determines which L1VPN it's
associated with (since apparently the RSVP messages are not
necessarily sent over the CE-PE link identified by CPI/PPI, and the
L1VPN is not uniquely identified by CE-CC-Addr/PE-CC-Addr).

Sandy's SecDir review also identified a number of places that
would benefit from some clarification of the text, and provided
editorial comments that should be taken into acccount.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-07 for -)
No email
send info
In Section 1, you say:

As with L3VPNs, there are protocol options to be made with auto-discovery.

Did you mean protocol choices?

In Setion 2, you say:

Since the mechanisms specified in this document
   use GMPLS as the signaling mechanism, and since GMPLS applies to
   both SONET/SDH (TDM) and Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces, it
   results that L1VPN services include (but are not restricted) to
   Lambda Switch Capable or TDM-based equipment.

Did you mean "it follows that"?

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-06 for -)
No email
send info
  There has been a dialogue between Sandy Murphy and Adrian Farrel that
  was begun by Sandy's SecDir Review.  The Security Considerations in
  this document are very sparse, saying essentially that because the
  matching of customer channels to provider ports is assumed to be done
  correctly and out of band there are no security considerations.
  However, the dialogue between Sandy and Adrian shows that there is
  actually more to say.  I support the DISCUSS position that Pasi has
  entered ...

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-07 for -)
No email
send info
Note that I support Pasi's discuss wrt security considerations.

One nit:

s 4.1, 1st sentence
s/there/their/