Pseudowire Redundancy
RFC 6718
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
Matthew, thank you: the -08 version is clear, and a pleasure to read. It has fixed all my concerns about the language. Good work.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for the hard work to address my Discuss and Comments
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for taking care of my DISCUSS/COMMENT
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(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) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
Note these comments are the same for both draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy and draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit. Much of the Terminology is repeated in draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy and draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit. Can't you just point from on to the other? This uses the TCP MD5 "signature" option [RFC5036]. KARP's hopefully going to get this fixed sooner rather than later. So there's nothing for the authors to do about this otherwise recurring gripe. I'd like to suggest some tweaks to the security considerations section, assuming of course that I've not totally missed the mark: 1st - I think the "LDP extensions" are referred to as options in both RFC 4447 and 5036? 2nd - I think there's only one of them? 3rd - I think you mean control plane not control protocol? How about the following tweaks to the security considerations section: This document uses the TCP MD5 Signature option, as specified in [2], to protect pseudowires. This document has the same security considerations as in the PWE3 control-plane [2]. If you want to future proof the text more maybe: LDP extensions/options that protect pseudowires must be implemented because the security considerations for the bits defined in this document have the same security considerations as the PWE3 control-plane [2].
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection