Pseudowire Redundancy
RFC 6718

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

Barry Leiba (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2012-05-05 for -08)
No email
send info
Matthew, thank you: the -08 version is clear, and a pleasure to read.  It has fixed all my concerns about the language.  Good work.

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-27)
No email
send info
Thanks for taking care of my DISCUSS/COMMENT

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-11)
No email
send info
Thanks for the hard work to address my Discuss and Comments

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-22 for -08)
No email
send info
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].