Framework for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Control of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy/Synchronous Optical Networking (SDH/SONET) Networks
RFC 4257

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) Discuss

Discuss (2004-12-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Reviewed by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART, who found the presentation of materials somewhat suboptimal - in particular, he found conclusions and tutorial/background materials so thoroughly mixed that it's hard to tell what the document is trying to say.

I'd like (at minimum) a response to the review before approving it.
Comment (2004-12-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART

Complete review added to document log.

(Alex Zinin) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-21)
No email
send info
After discussion with the AD I have cleared Harald's DISCUSS, even though the main point raised by Elwyn Davies, the Gen-Art reviewer, (excessive tutorial, unevenness of detail, whether it really is a framework and failure to highlight conclusions/requirements) has not been fixed. This is a judgement call.

However, there is one new review comment that should be fixed editorially.

> One additional point which I didn't pick up on in the previous review is a
> 'red rag' issue in the second paragraph of 1.1: equating MPLS LSP in
> general with circuit.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Missing IANA Considerations.

I'm not sure I agree with the statements in the Security Considerations section about the need for GMPLS protocol specifications alone to identify and address security issues specific to protocol.  If this document is describing an extension framework, shouldn't it also address the security implications of extensions in general?  I'll leave it to Russ or Sam to determine if this merits a discuss or not.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Record

Comment (2004-12-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Since this is a lot about SONET/SDH, would it not be good to have the document reviewed by someone from ITU-T as well?