Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires
RFC 6478
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Please consider whether [REDUNDANCY] really needs to be a normative reference. I don't think you use it in that way. --- Section 6 and its sub-section could be more careful about whether PWs or PW segments are switched. --- 4385 and 4447 are messed up in the references section.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
1. I support Russ's DISCUSS 2. [closed]
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
Ari Keränen helped me review this specification and he too was concerned about Section 5.3 (PW OAM status message transmit and receive): [...] the PW OAM message containing the PW status TLV needs to be transmitted repeatedly to ensure reliable message delivery. [...] A PW OAM message containing a PW status TLV with a new status bit set or reset, will be transmitted immediately by the PE. The PW OAM message will then be repeated twice more at an initial interval of one second. The message is always sent 3 times during the first 3 seconds? How about ACKs?
(Pete Resnick; 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) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
These would probably all get fixed by the RFC editor, but I noticed them so I included them here. 1) Header should be: Updates: 5585 (if approved) 2) There's a "MUST not" in s5.3 - is that supposed to be "MUST NOT"? 3) Expiry date in status of memo section doesn't match the date in the header.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- section 2: s/two Provider Edge (PE)/two Provider Edge (PE) devices/? - section 2: s/and [REDUNDANCY].../and elsewhere [REDUNDANCY]/ - 5.3 1st para: if an unknown or malformed TLV is received but in a message containing >1 TLV, does that imply anything about the other TLVs in that message?
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Russ's DISCUSS.