Skip to main content

Layer Two Tunneling Protocol version 3 - Setup of Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) Pseudowires
RFC 5611

Yes

(Mark Townsley)
(Ralph Droms)

No Objection

(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

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

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-01-15)
Section 1., paragraph 3:
>    Setup and maintenance of TDM PWs in MPLS networks using LDP is
>    described in [].

  Missing reference.


Section 1., paragraph 2:
>    Setup of structure-aware TDM pseudowires using encapsulations
>    described in [RFC5087] has been left for further study.

  In that case, the document title should reflect that. Maybe "Layer Two
  Tunneling Protocol - Setup of Structure-Agnostic TDM Pseudowires"? The
  RFC Editor will also likely ask you to expand the TDM acronym in the
  title (and many of the other acronyms you're using.)

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-06-18)
Sorry to raise a late comment...

In section 2.1
  1)Only the following values MUST be specified for structure-
     agnostic emulation (see [RFC4553]): 
     a) Structure-agnostic E1 emulation  - 32 
     b) Structure-agnostic T1 emulation: 
         i) MUST be set to 24 for the basic mode  
         ii) MUST be set to 25 for the "Octet-aligned T1" 
            mode 
     c) Structure-agnostic E3 emulation  - 535 
     d) Structure-agnostic T3 emulation  - 699 

I cannot parse this. Does the "MUST" apply to future specifications? I.e., is it an instruction to IANA? Or are you trying to say...

   For structure-agnostic emulation, this parameter MUST
   be set to one of the following values.

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-01-15)
Section 1:

> signaling packets). However, the order of the CESoPSN Control Word

The acronym needs to be expanded.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-01-13)
There is quite a lot of non-expanded acronyms in the initial part of the document. 

Especially these ones needs expanding and possibly references:

Conventions:
In this document we refer to control plane as the packets that 
   contain control information (via AVP) and the mechanism that handles 
   these packets.  

Section 1: Is RTP (RFC 3550) here? 
 However, the order of the CESoPSN Control Word 
   (CW) and RTP header (if it is used) MUST match between the TDM data 
   and CE signaling packets. 

Note that there is an acronym overloading here with the word (AVP) as that has one meaning in RTP talk (Audio/video Profile) and another in this document. So RTP AVP in section 2.2 has the potential to be somewhat confusing.

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

No Objection (2009-04-22)

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()