High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) Frames over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3 (L2TPv3)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Margaret Cullen) Yes
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Comment (2005-08-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
From Gen-ART review by Avri Doria Section 3.1 page 5. It states that LCCE A should then exhibit a periodic retry mechanism. The period and maximum number of retries MUST be configurable. Since a MUST is used to define the period and number of retries, it seems confusing that the retry mechanism is not also required. If this is conditional on such a mechanism exisiting, but the mechanism is option (MAY), it should say this. [BC - presumably the "should" in the first quoted sentence should be "SHOULD" and the second sentence should start "If so, ...". Alternatively, the "should" should be "MUST". ]
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
Please pick one spelling: "Pseudowire" or "Pseudo-Wire" "HDLC PW" or "HDLCPW" In the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction: s/point to point/point-to-point/ In section 3.1, the document says: > > Attribute Type 68, MUST be present in the ICRQ messages and MUST > include the HDLC PW Type of 0x0006 for HDLCPWs. > Please reword. I suggest: > > Attribute Type 68 MUST be present in the ICRQ messages and MUST > include the PW Type of 0x0006 for HDLCPWs.
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection
Said it needed an applicability statement (fidelity to the link) as per the PWE3 charter. This one is very good and straight-shooting, other than some sketchy words about existence of mechanims to get the underlying link to have QoS like a non-pseudo HDLC.