Segmented Pseudowire
RFC 6073
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for version 18 which addresses my remaining comments.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I also support Lars Eggerts discuss regarding congestion control. It seems that multi-segment in its various combinations have many potential ways of breaking the congestion control loop. Thus that fact and what can be done on the signalling plane by the S-PE is important.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
The Gen-ART Review by Sean Turner on 31-Aug-2009 raises a few questions:
- Do you really want 7 authors? The RFC Editor prefers 5 or less.
- Should the Introduction be Section 1?
- Sec 7.4.1: Indicates the PW Switching Point description string is
80 characters long. Should it say more about the character set?
- Sec 8.4.1: Figure shows both AC "Up" and AC "UP". Should they all
be "Up"?
- Sec 16: s/Author's/Authors'
- There are a couple of places where " , " should be changed to ", "
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection