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@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM > To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; pwe3@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally, comments may >> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf