Skip to main content

MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators
RFC 7271

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-03-27 for -03)
OPS DIR review by Tina:

Summary: Ready with nits

 

Line 410, delete 1st 'when'

 

Line 425, replace 'Switch- over' with 'Switch-over'

 

Line 453, 'is accepted' can be deleted for redundancy

 

Line 549, replace 'transmission' with 'received' or delete it, otherwise ‘integrity of the packet transmission’ does not parse

 

Line 575, delete 'under SD condition' as it is redundant

 

Line 580-583, the phrases:

   "...The packet duplication SHALL continue in the WTR

   state in revertive operation and SHALL stop when the node leaves the

   WTR state.  In non-revertive operation, the packet duplication SHALL

   stop when the SD condition is cleared."

should be rewritten as:

   "When the SD condition is cleared, in revertive operation, the packet duplication

SHALL continue in the WTR state and SHALL stop when the node leaves the

    WTR state; while in non-revertive operation, the packet duplication SHALL stop immediately."

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-03-25 for -03)
I only quickly scanned this so maybe I'm totally wrong
here but isn't this spec defining new ways in which an
operator could break a network manually? If so, isn't that
a security consideration? But maybe that's covered in 6378
or 5920 or I'm just talking nonsense:-)

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)