It cannot be an erratum.
An erratum indicated an error a the time of writing and that is clearly
not the case.
Is the text " For example, the PW Preferential Forwarding status state
machine as defined in [RFCXXXX (this document)] is in state "STANDBY". "
actually in the MIB definition itself?
If so it's an update to the MIB (as explained in the draft).
If not then why not simply explain the event's action on the MIB and not
update the MIB itself?
- Stewart
On 07/03/2012 19:31, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
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
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf