Using the Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
RFC 6423
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
Section 1 [RFC5586] defines a generalized label-based exception mechanism using the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) to work together with the ACH for use with LSPs but places restrictions on GAL usage with PWs. This document removes the restriction imposed by [RFC5586]. Please clarify one or more restrictions? --- Section 3 This indicates that the GAL can be used for MPLS-TP LSPs and Sections, but not for PWs using an MPLS-TP PSN. What does it mean for a PW to use an MPLS-TP PSN? Perhaps... but not for PWs in an MPLS-TP network. --- Nits Title s/Pseudowire/Pseudowires/ --- Abstract s/[RFC5586]/RFC 5586/ --- Section 1 s/associated control channel/Associated Channel/ (per RFC 5085) --- Section 1 s/generalizes this for use in the/generalizes this for use as the/ --- Section 3 para 1 Delete "appropriate" or fix as suggested by Stephen
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
OAM is defined in the terminology section but never used. I suggest to drop it.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; 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) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
typo: s/architectures appropriate/architectures as appropriate/ in section 3
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection