Skip to main content

MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection
RFC 6378

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)

Recuse

(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes) Yes
Yes ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2011-08-01)
1. In Section 3.1: 

OAM indication - OAM fault management or performance measurement  
       tools may detect a failure or degrade condition on either the    
       working or protection transport path and this must input an  
       indication to the Local Request Logic. 

better s/must/MUST/

2. In Section 4.1: 

       The actual frequencies used may be  
       configurable, at the time of establishment, for each individual  
       protected LSP.  For management purposes, the operator should be able  
       to retrieve the current default frequency values as well as the  
       actual values for any specific LSP. 

In the first sentence better s/may/MAY/
In the second sentence better s/should/SHOULD/
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2011-07-14)
#1) Section 1.1: r/compared to other survivability mechanisms/, compared to other survivability mechanisms (e.g., ... ).

Isn't it kind of an empty claim otherwise?  The survivability draft only claims:

   In a mesh network, linear protection
   provides a very suitable protection mechanism because it can operate
   between any pair of points within the network.

#2) Expand P2P on first use.

#3) In Section 4.2.2, I think it would aid the reader greatly to add a pointer to registry in Section 5.2?  When I read 4.2.2, the first thought that popped in to my mind was: well what about all the other values are they reserved?  It's probably also worth point out that values are assigned by IANA.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse ()