Skip to main content

A Thesaurus for the Interpretation of Terminology Used in MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Internet-Drafts and RFCs in the Context of the ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-13

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)

Recuse

(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-10-21) Unknown
The well done shepherd writeup clearly tells us that this document has been widely reviewed and is widely seen as a useful tool.  Given that and a quick breeze through it, I see nothing that I might even consider objecting to.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-10-24) Unknown
Section 1.1 "contributing authors" should be called "Contributors" section.
See http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/62/slides/editor-0.pdf, slide 37
Let's not invent a new term.

OAM stands for "Operations, Administration and Maintenance"
Section 1 mentions "Operation, Administration and Management". Please correct this.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-10-22) Unknown
looks good. earlier reviews I've seen raise no red flags after the recent edit.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-10-22) Unknown
I would be a "Yes" if I understood the technology better. This is very good, and very helpful. I wish I'd had a doc like this as a Gen-ART reviewer.

I did have a couple of questions you might want to consider, along with any other comments you receive during IESG evaluation.

In section 1.1 Contributing Authors

   Italo Busi, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Enrique Hernandez-Valencia, Lieven
   Levrau, Dinesh Mohan, Stuart Bryant, Dan Frost, Matthew Bocci,

                         ^ this isn't Stewart Bryant, is it? :-)

   Vincenzo Sestito, Vigoureux, Yaacov Weingarten

In section 3.19 Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP):

   Maintenance Entity Group End Points (MEPs) are the end points of a
   pre-configured (through the management or control planes) ME.  MEPs
   are responsible for activating and controlling all of the OAM
   functionality for the ME. A source MEP may initiate an OAM packet to
   be transferred to its corresponding peer or sink MEP, or to an
   intermediate MIP that is part of the ME. See also [RFC6371] section
   3.3 and [ITU-T G.8113.1], [ITU-T G.8113.2] clause 6.3.

Are "peer" and "sink" being used as synonyms? Is that normal optical terminology? in which case, tell me "yes" ...
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse () Unknown