GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
IANA issues addressed in email and RFC Editor note
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
(Barry Leiba) No Objection
Just two minor, non-blocking things related to the use of "REQUIRED" as a 2119 key word along with the modifier "not": -- Section 6.2 -- - In case of ODUk to OTUk mapping, TPN field MUST be set to 0. Bit Map information is not REQUIRED and MUST NOT be included, so Length field MUST be set to 0 as well. The "REQUIRED" there should not be a 2119 key word, and should be made lower case. Otherwise, there's a conflict with the MUST NOT. And see below. -- Section 9 -- o A node supporting both sets of procedures (i.e., [RFC4328] and this document) is not REQUIRED to signal an LSP using both procedures, i.e., to act as a signaling version translator. Similar to the above. The problem is that "REQUIRED" means "MUST", but "not REQUIRED" does not mean "MUST NOT". It's best to avoid "not REQUIRED" with a 2119 meaning. The easiest fix is just to make "required" lower case (or another way to say "is not required" is "need not"). And I can't really think of a good way to say what you want to say in 2119-ese, nor why you'd have to.