MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework
RFC 6372
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
I thought this I-D was very well written. I just found nits, which I bet the RFC-editor would have caught: 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I think a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are? [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ 5) Section 4.4.2: Add period: (1:n or m:n). ^ 6) Section 4.4.3: Add period: service degradation. ^ 7) Section 4.7: Missing ): (see Section 4.5 associated with the protection function. 8) Section 4.7.6: Extra "1"?: Additionally, note that the shared-protection resources could be used 1 to carry extra traffic, for example, in Figure 4, an LSP JPQRK ^ ? 9) Section 6.1.1: Missing period: etc.). ^ 10) Section 6.1.2: Missing periods (X2): recovery entity. ^ 11) Section 6.4: r/(Maintenance Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)/MIPs (Maintenance Group Intermediate Points) 12) Section 6.5: r/t1he/the
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Recuse