Applicability of MPLS Transport Profile for Ring Topologies
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Richard Barnes) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
Probably the RFC editors would correct this. Anyway, here it is "Contributing Authors" section title -> "Contributors" https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt : 1. First-page header [Required] 2. Status of this Memo [Required*] 3. Copyright Notice [Required*] 4. IESG Note [As requested by IESG*] 5. Abstract [Required] 6. Table of Contents [Required for large documents] 7. Body of the Memo [Required] 7a. Contributors 7b. Acknowledgments 7c. Security Considerations [Required] 7d. IANA Considerations 7e. Appendixes 7f. References 8. Author's Address [Required] 9. IPR Boilerplate [Required*]
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
- So colour me puzzled - the write up says "nothing new here, just a way to use 6378" but there are two RAND+fee IPR declarations. Sigh. (But no more than a sigh since the WG are ok with it.) - Is the syntax on p6 for describing label stacks not more generic than this? I assume its too late (or not worth the bother) to take this out into its own informational RFC as it might be more broadly useful. If that text is replicated from elsewhere then I'd suggest you reference the elsewehere and not include it here again. - The tables/figures/whatever between figures 7 and 9 have no captions.
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
Barry Leiba No Objection
I don't object to the Informational status of this document, but I have to ask, in a non-blocking and non-confrontational way: From the shepherd writeup: This document does not specify a protocol but describes how to use the MPLS-TP linear protection as specified in RFC 6378 for ring topologies, the document is thus intended to be published as an informational RFC. This really *is* what applicability statements are for, the title even calls itself an applicability statement, and it does make recommendations (not just give information). I wonder, then, why it's Informational, rather than Standards Track (see RFC 2026, Section 3.2).