GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration
RFC 7260
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
IANA issues have been discussed and resolved to my satisfaction
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Than you for addressing my DISCUSS and comments in version -13.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(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
lools like -12 addressed outstanding opsdir comments.
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
Thanks for clearly identifying the new security consideration and explaining how it can be mitigated.
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
This is a well written document and I just have a few nits that you might consider. There were a number of terms that as far as I could see were unexpanded on first use and are not "well known". I picked up DWDM, RSVP-TE, LSP, WSON, TDM, SDH/SONET. Please can I suggest an quick abbreviation scrub. With the text "the ADMIN_STATUS Object is specified for RSVP-TE in [RFC3473]. " This ref should go a little earlier in the para, when you first use the term "If this is not possible, a PathErr SHOULD be sent " and "a ResvErr may be sent" Presumable these are "messages" or "responses" 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (IANA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OAM Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ sub-TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: indicates a new type: the OAM Configuration TLV (IANA to assign). Is the length syntax well known in this context?