ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard

2012-03-07 13:32:09

        After looking over this just now - and forgive me as I didn't realize 
it contained a reference to 5542 until now - it seems to me that rather that 
including this in the RFC as "an update to RFC5542", this be added as an errata 
entry to 5542.  It seems odd to me to note that the single sentence represented 
here "updates" the RFC version, when what it does is really clarify it based on 
the new behavior outlined in the redundancy-bit draft, and even then "clarify" 
is difficult to use since it is more of an example of such a case of a 
'dormant' interface.

        --Tom


On Mar 7, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote:

Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and 
publish a new revision.

Mustapha. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt> (Pseudowire 
Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard


Authors

There was on point that I notice that you did not address from the AD review 
and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:

In section 10 you say:

   "This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC
   textual convention in RFC5542 [8]: "

This update should be recorded in the metadata (top left front page) and it 
is usual to put a one line note in the abstract.

Stewart



On 07/03/2012 17:00, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to 
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit'
  <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt>  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits 
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally, 
comments may 
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain 
the 
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   This document describes a mechanism for standby status signaling of
   redundant pseudowires (PWs) between their termination points. A set
   of redundant PWs is configured between provider edge (PE) nodes in
   single-segment pseudowire (SS-PW) applications, or between
   terminating provider edge (T-PE) nodes in multi-segment pseudowire
   (MS-PW) applications.

   In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW to use
   for forwarding PW packets to one another, a new status bit is needed
   to indicate a preferential forwarding status of Active or Standby for
   each PW in a redundant set.

   In addition, a second status bit is defined to allow peer PE nodes to
   coordinate a switchover operation of the PW.






The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce



--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf