Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network
RFC 6391

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

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-22)
No email
send info
I don't get the meaning of the text below in section 12. Are
yet more changes expected?

  "The congestion considerations applicable to PWs as described in
   [RFC3985] and any additional congestion considerations developed at
   the time of publication apply to this design."

(David Harrington) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-22)
No email
send info
1) in 8.5, incomplete sentence at the end.
2)in 1.2, "A similar design for general MPLS use has also been proposed [I-D.kompella-mpls-entropy-label], Section 9. " It would be good if there was a touch of analysis to accompany this statement. Are the two approaches able to co-exist? If the gerenal solution is approved, will this pwe-specific approach still be needed? (this is apparently provided in section 9. eirther eliminate the reference in 1.1, or provide a forward reference to section 9.
3) a reference for the TC bits (previously known as the EXP bits)?

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-22)
No email
send info
I fully support David's first DISCUSSion point. The shepherding report and the document writeup are pretty content free.

- The IPR discussion was missed.
- I understand that the shepherding writeup was done before the assorted evaluations after -05, but it should have been updated to reflect.

I have no objection to the document on technical grounds (it is well outside my area of expertise), but I also have no way to evaluate it on process grounds.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-22)
No email
send info
1. OAM is not expanded in any place. I think that the dedicated section should mention that the interpretation of the acronyms is conformant to RFC 6291. 

2. The text in the IANA specifications is slightly mis-leading as there is no amending of the IANA registry, just a change of reference when the RFC is published. I trust IANA knows what to do, but I think a better text would be something like: 

'IANA is requested to reserve the PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry value 0x17 for the Flow Label indicator with the reference column refering to this RFC.'

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) Recuse