MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
Comment (2013-01-24 for -07)
[I realized I made a small mistake in one sentence below. Resending] Regarding ... Bert> So in my view, it is not "augmenting" rfc6370, but instead defining a extra/duplicate set of names for the same thing. Huub> They will not be used at the same time in the same domain. The document would be incomplete without such a clarification: "the different name schemes are not supposed to be run in the same domain"
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2013-01-21 for -07)
Just nits: - section 1: "an alternative way to uniquely identify an operator/service provider" is a bit odd, perhaps it'd be better to say "an alternative way to produce a unique identifier for an operator/service provider"? The current text could be read as saying that was the only way to identify an operator. - section 8: maybe s/describe use of/use/ or s/describe use/describe the use/
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Barry Leiba No Objection
(Pete Resnick) No Objection
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection
(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for dealing with discusses.