Frame Relay over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)
RFC 4591

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Margaret Cullen) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-09-16)
No email
send info
Said it needed an applicability statement (fidelity to the link behavior) as per the PWE3 charter.
On clearing wrote:

Mark, Carlos, Ron, Margaret,

The new applicability statements are quite good, and
I've clear my Discusses. I just have a question.

They both end by saying that the capabilities of the LCCE (which
I think means RFC 3991) and the underlying PSN may provide
QoS to support features.  In FR: CIR, bc, be, and HDLC: better

My question is for my better future understanding:  what is the
plane of interaction with the PSN; what RFC 3991 feature or other
channel exists through which the underlying QoS support is possible?
For FR, is support even good for FECN and BECN and DE.  I need
enlightenment here:  I don't have a clear picture about L2TPv3
capability of gathering congestion information from the underlying

I'm removing my Discuss because I think the applicability
statements don't make claims that these features are faithfully
provided so much as they state that someone deploying could
do engineering to get some emulation into place.  This is
good enough.  But I'd be curious about the basic approach if
anyone has time to enlighten me :)

Thanks very much for the new sections!

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) Recuse