Applicability of MPLS Transport Profile for Ring Topologies
RFC 6974

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

Comment (2013-05-15)
No email
send info
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

Comment (2013-05-14)
No email
send info
- 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

Comment (2013-05-10)
No email
send info
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).

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) Recuse