A Thesaurus for the Interpretation of Terminology Used in MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Internet-Drafts and RFCs in the Context of the ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations
RFC 7087

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-24)
No email
send info
Section 1.1 "contributing authors" should be called "Contributors" section.
See http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/62/slides/editor-0.pdf, slide 37
Let's not invent a new term.

OAM stands for "Operations, Administration and Maintenance"
Section 1 mentions "Operation, Administration and Management". Please correct this.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22)
No email
send info
I would be a "Yes" if I understood the technology better. This is very good, and very helpful. I wish I'd had a doc like this as a Gen-ART reviewer.

I did have a couple of questions you might want to consider, along with any other comments you receive during IESG evaluation.

In section 1.1 Contributing Authors

   Italo Busi, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Enrique Hernandez-Valencia, Lieven
   Levrau, Dinesh Mohan, Stuart Bryant, Dan Frost, Matthew Bocci,

                         ^ this isn't Stewart Bryant, is it? :-)

   Vincenzo Sestito, Vigoureux, Yaacov Weingarten

In section 3.19 Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP):

   Maintenance Entity Group End Points (MEPs) are the end points of a
   pre-configured (through the management or control planes) ME.  MEPs
   are responsible for activating and controlling all of the OAM
   functionality for the ME. A source MEP may initiate an OAM packet to
   be transferred to its corresponding peer or sink MEP, or to an
   intermediate MIP that is part of the ME. See also [RFC6371] section
   3.3 and [ITU-T G.8113.1], [ITU-T G.8113.2] clause 6.3.

Are "peer" and "sink" being used as synonyms? Is that normal optical terminology? in which case, tell me "yes" ...

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22)
No email
send info
looks good. earlier reviews I've seen raise no red flags after the recent edit.

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-21)
No email
send info
The well done shepherd writeup clearly tells us that this document has been widely reviewed and is widely seen as a useful tool.  Given that and a quick breeze through it, I see nothing that I might even consider objecting to.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) Recuse