Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching
conflict-review-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-03-31
01 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-12

The IESG has completed a review of
draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-12 consistent with
RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Pre-standard Linear
Protection Switching in MPLS-TP'
as an
Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
in the MPLS WG and PWE3 WG, but this relationship does not prevent
publishing.

The IESG requests that this document is not published as an RFC before
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu and draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates which, along
with RFC 6378 contain an IETF consensus approach to the same topic.


The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary



2014-03-31
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the conflict review response
2014-03-31
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-03-31
01 Amy Vezza Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement sent from Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent
2014-03-27
01 Cindy Morgan Conflict Review State changed to Approved No Problem - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2014-03-27
01 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-03-27
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-03-27
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-03-26
01 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-03-26
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-03-25
01 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-03-24
01 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-03-23
01 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-03-21
01 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-03-20
01 Adrian Farrel New version available: conflict-review-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-01.txt
2014-03-19
00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-03-11
00 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
The IESG requests that this document is not published as an RFC before
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu and draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates which, along
with RFC 6378 contain an …
[Ballot comment]
The IESG requests that this document is not published as an RFC before
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu and draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates which, along
with RFC 6378 contain an IETF consensus approach to the same topic.

=====

Substantive notes


Section 7.1

This document cites a specific code point value from an Experimental
range. This is against the spirit of RFC 3692.

I suggest that the value 0x7FFA be replaced with a tage such as "XXXX"
and that the descriptive note be changed to read:

  As with all experimental deployments, the value of XXXX must be
  chosen by the network operator and configured on all implementations.
  As described by [RFC3692] implementations should allow configuration
  of this value.

=====

Editorial notes

The ISE is requested to update the Abstract to indicate the RFC numbers
assigned to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu and draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates.

---

Abstract para 2
s/has been/was/

Ditto Introduction para 2

---

I think it would be helpful if this document included a reference to
RFC 5654 from the 5th paragraph of the Introduction.

---

Secton 7.1 shows "DEFAULT" in upper case. This usage of upper case has
no specific meaning and I suggest changing to lower case.
2014-03-11
00 Adrian Farrel Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel
2014-03-11
00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-03-11
00 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2014-03-11
00 Adrian Farrel Conflict Review State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Review
2014-03-11
00 Adrian Farrel New version available: conflict-review-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-00.txt
2014-03-05
00 Cindy Morgan Removed telechat returning item indication
2014-03-05
00 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2014-03-27 from 2014-03-20
2014-02-22
00 Adrian Farrel Conflict Review State changed to AD Review from Needs Shepherd
2014-02-22
00 Adrian Farrel Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2014-02-20
00 Cindy Morgan Shepherd writeup at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching/shepherdwriteup/
2014-02-20
00 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-03-20
2014-02-20
00 Nevil Brownlee IETF conflict review requested