MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions
RFC 6923
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
[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"
(Brian Haberman; 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) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for dealing with discusses.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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/
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection