The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
RFC 6670

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-05-09)
No email
send info
Thanks for the document.

Three editorial points:
- Transport profile -> Transport Profile

- "It is possible to argue that using MPLS for Transport is only a
   stepping stone in the middle of a longer transition."
Transport -> transport or Transport Profile?

-  "As we shall demonstrate, ..."
The RFC editor gave me in the past the advice to remove "we", "us", "our" from the future RFCs.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-05-06)
No email
send info
  Section 7 should be removed before publication as an RFC.

  The Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter reported one editorial problem.
  There is duplicated text in section 1.2:

   ...
   be managed using tools with similar look and feel.  The requirements
   specifications [RFC5654] and [RFC5860] specifications [RFC5654] and
   [RFC5860] capture the essential issues that must be resolved to allow
   ...

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-05-08)
No email
send info
I fully support the conclusion here and the argument
varies from compelling at best to good enough at
worst.

typos: 

s/documentationin/document in/?
s/viably/viability/
s/a E1 only/an E1 only/

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-05-02)
No email
send info
Excellently written, clear document.

Just a few minor editorial things; no need to reply to them:

-- Section 3.4 --
OLD
   In an isolated system this may be the
   case, however when, as is usually case with communications
   technologies, simplification in one element of the system introduces
   a (possibly non-linear) increase in complexity elsewhere.
NEW
   In an isolated system this may be the
   case; however, as is usually case with communications
   technologies, simplification in one element of the system introduces
   a (possibly non-linear) increase in complexity elsewhere.

OLD
   the cost of increased complexity at a peer network element we loose
   out economically
NEW
   the cost of increased complexity at a peer network element we lose
   out economically

-- Section 3.6 --
OLD
   At the very least, the evaluation of these questions constitute a
   cost and introduce delay for the operator.
COMMENT
The subject is "evaluation", not "questions", so it's singular.
NEW
   At the very least, the evaluation of these questions constitutes a
   cost and introduces delay for the operator.

-- Section 4.3.2.2 --
"straightforward" is one word, not hyphenated.  (Also in Appendix A.5)

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info