A Thesaurus for the Interpretation of Terminology Used in MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Internet-Drafts and RFCs in the Context of the ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations
RFC 7087
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
The well done shepherd writeup clearly tells us that this document has been widely reviewed and is widely seen as a useful tool. Given that and a quick breeze through it, I see nothing that I might even consider objecting to.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 1.1 "contributing authors" should be called "Contributors" section. See http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/62/slides/editor-0.pdf, slide 37 Let's not invent a new term. OAM stands for "Operations, Administration and Maintenance" Section 1 mentions "Operation, Administration and Management". Please correct this.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
looks good. earlier reviews I've seen raise no red flags after the recent edit.
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
I would be a "Yes" if I understood the technology better. This is very good, and very helpful. I wish I'd had a doc like this as a Gen-ART reviewer.
I did have a couple of questions you might want to consider, along with any other comments you receive during IESG evaluation.
In section 1.1 Contributing Authors
Italo Busi, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Enrique Hernandez-Valencia, Lieven
Levrau, Dinesh Mohan, Stuart Bryant, Dan Frost, Matthew Bocci,
^ this isn't Stewart Bryant, is it? :-)
Vincenzo Sestito, Vigoureux, Yaacov Weingarten
In section 3.19 Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP):
Maintenance Entity Group End Points (MEPs) are the end points of a
pre-configured (through the management or control planes) ME. MEPs
are responsible for activating and controlling all of the OAM
functionality for the ME. A source MEP may initiate an OAM packet to
be transferred to its corresponding peer or sink MEP, or to an
intermediate MIP that is part of the ME. See also [RFC6371] section
3.3 and [ITU-T G.8113.1], [ITU-T G.8113.2] clause 6.3.
Are "peer" and "sink" being used as synonyms? Is that normal optical terminology? in which case, tell me "yes" ...
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Recuse