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
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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