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

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

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2009-01-15 for -)
No email
send info
Section 1:

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

The acronym needs to be expanded.

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-01-15)
No email
send info
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.)

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2009-06-18)
No email
send info
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" 
     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.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

Comment (2009-01-13 for -)
No email
send info
There is quite a lot of non-expanded acronyms in the initial part of the document. 

Especially these ones needs expanding and possibly references:

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.