Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)
RFC 4553

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

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-12-13)
No email
send info

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-12-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
there are two sequence number mechanisms: the control word and the RTP
sequence number mechanism.  One MAY be used; the other is used.  That
seems confusing.  Why not require one and forbid the other or at least
explain why both are permitted.

I came very close to holding a discuss because I found it difficult to
evaluate whether the TDM control protocol will be able to set up all
the configuration parameters for this document.  I would recommend
having a section that specifies in one place all the things that need
to be configured for this type of PW to work.  That would make
reviewing this document independent of the TDM control document
easier.  I may hold discusses on similar issues in the future.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-02-17)
No email
send info
The new congestion section is excellent.

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2005-12-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
In section 4:

 0               1               2               3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           ...                                 |
|              PSN and multiplexing layer headers               |
|                           ...                                 |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

I suspect it should be (i.e not 18, 26 and 34, but 10, 20 and 30):

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           ...                                 |
|              PSN and multiplexing layer headers               |
|                           ...                                 |
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

same to other figures (page 6 and 7)

Page 8:
  RSV (reserved) and FRG (fragmentation) bits (6 to 10) - MUST be set to
  0 by the PSN-bound IWF and MUST be ignored by the CE-bound IWF.
probably change "(6 to 10)" into "(6 to 9)" to be in sync with figure 3!

(Alex Zinin) No Objection