Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile
RFC 5654

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-11)
No email
send info
Agree with many of Dan's points.

Section 1., paragraph 13:
>    MPLS-TP will enable the depoyment of packet based transport networks

  Nit: s/depoyment/deployment/


Section 2, paragraph 0:
>    2   Any new functionality that is defined to fulfill the requirements
>        for MPLS-TP MUST be agreed within the IETF through the IETF
>        consensus process as per [RFC4929]

  Agree with Dan - this isn't a requirement on the technology, it's a
  meta-requirement.


Section 29, paragraph 0:
>    29  MPLS-TP MUST be able to scale at least as well as existing
>        transport technologies with growing and increasingly complex
>        network topologies as well as with increasing bandwidth demands,
>        number of customers, and number of services.

  It will be impossible to verify if this requirement is met. (This
  comment applies to all other scaling requirements in the document.)


Section 65, paragraph 0:
>    65  MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST support revertive and non-

  Nit: s/revertive/reverting/ (And what does this mean?)


Section 66, paragraph 0:
>    66  MPLS-TP MUST support 1+1 protection.

  Where is "1+1 protection" defined?


Section 68, paragraph 0:
>    68  MPLS-TP MUST support 1:n protection (including 1:1 protection).

  Where is "1:n protection" defined. (And is "1:1 protection" different
  from "1+1 protection"?)

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection