Revised Definition of the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
RFC 7074

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25)
No email
send info
Question: Since this document deprecates some values from IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC in, and since IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC was specified in RFC 4802, does this document update RFC 4802?

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-23)
No email
send info
I was confused by 

5. IANA Considerations

   IANA needs to deprecate and redefine the related registry. 

Should this be something like "deprecate some existing values in the related registry"?  I'm not understanding why you deprecate a registry and redefine it in the same sentence ...

Obviously this isn't blocking if IANA already thinks they know what to do, but if this needs to be changed to be clear to future readers, please consider changing it!

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-24)
No email
send info

- abstract: "updates any document that..." is an odd phrase.
Aren't we sure?

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25)
No email
send info
A fine document, this.
Just two very minor editorial things, for which no email response is needed:

In the abstract, I think you'll make Stephen (well, and me) happier if you change "any document that uses" to "all documents that use" (also in Section 1).  :-)

In the penultimate paragraph of Section 1, please change "and limit its use" to "and limiting its use" (parallel to "deprecating the use").

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25)
No email
send info
The abstract bit about "updates any document" (and Barry suggestion of "all documents" doesn't change anything) is adding confusion where none is needed. On the one hand, it "Updates" in the sense of specifically updating particular documents such that the "Updated by" banner will appear on the top of the web page with that RFC. On the other hand, it is "updating" the protocol such that all uses of the fields noted in the document, whether in old documents or new ones, is changed. Combining these two uses of "updates" into the same sentence is bad form. Supposedly the reason we mention "Updates" in the Abstract is so that people notice that particular documents have been updated and can do the right thing. Saying that any (or all) documents that use this field are hereby updated isn't saying anything useful here.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection