MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions
RFC 6923

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

Comment (2013-03-04)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my concerns.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2013-01-24 for -07)
No email
send info
[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)
No email
send info
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

Comment (2013-03-04)
No email
send info
Thanks for dealing with discusses.