Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires
RFC 6478

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Ari Keränen helped me review this specification and he too was concerned about Section 5.3 (PW OAM status message transmit and receive):

[...] the PW OAM
message containing the PW status TLV needs to be transmitted
repeatedly to ensure reliable message delivery. [...]
A PW OAM message containing a PW status TLV with a new status bit set
or reset, will be transmitted immediately by the PE. The PW OAM
message will then be repeated twice more at an initial interval of
one second.

The message is always sent 3 times during the first 3 seconds? How about
ACKs?

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I support Russ's DISCUSS.

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-01)
No email
send info
Please consider whether [REDUNDANCY] really needs to be a normative 
reference. I don't think you use it in that way.

---

Section 6 and its sub-section could be more careful about whether PWs or
PW segments are switched.

---

4385 and 4447 are messed up in the references section.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
- section 2: s/two Provider Edge (PE)/two Provider Edge (PE)
devices/?

- section 2: s/and [REDUNDANCY].../and elsewhere [REDUNDANCY]/

- 5.3 1st para: if an unknown or malformed TLV is received but
in a message containing >1 TLV, does that imply anything about
the other TLVs in that message?

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-03)
No email
send info
1. I support Russ's DISCUSS

2. [closed]

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-10-31 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
These would probably all get fixed by the RFC editor, but I noticed them so I included them here.

1) Header should be:

  Updates: 5585 (if approved)

2) There's a "MUST not" in s5.3 - is that supposed to be "MUST NOT"?

3) Expiry date in status of memo section doesn't match the date in the header.