Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 20 and is now closed.
(Stewart Bryant) Yes
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2014-03-09 for -21)
Many thanks for addressing my Discuss and mopping up the many Comments. I support the publication of this document and have just three small Comments remaining. --- After updates to Figure 1, the text continues to refer to "PSN1" and "PSN2". I think you can... OLD A PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 Switching PE1 (S-PE1) across PSN1, and a second PSN tunnel extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 across PSN2. NEW A PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 Switching PE1 (S-PE1), and a second PSN tunnel extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2. END and later OLD PSN tunnels (e.g., PSN1 and PSN2) NEW PSN tunnels END ---- > >You will fall foul of the RFC Editor's requirement that the section > >titled "Authors' Addresses" contains only those people named on the > >front page. The others will need to be moved to "Contributors". You are still going to have to do something more here. Either now or during the RFC Editor process.
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2014-01-08 for -20)
- As noted in Joel's discuss, the authors promised some text to address the secdir review but I've not seen that so far (only been a couple of days to be fair). And as it happens that review didn't say why the reviewer had been convinced that its ok, so I'll look forward to seeing Joel's discuss being resolved.  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04501.html
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2014-03-10 for -21)
WFM. was Support Adrian's discuss. Also awaiting proposed text to address the security area review concerns.
Barry Leiba No Objection
(Pete Resnick) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection
(Sean Turner) No Objection
Comment (2014-01-09 for -20)
Support Joel's discuss.