Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network
RFC 6391
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
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.'
(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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)?
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Peter Saint-Andre; 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) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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."
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Recuse