|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
The referred RFC was approved by IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group).
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
G.8152.2 Annex A refers to IETF RFC 8227 clause 4. RFC 8227 clause 4 introduces the MPLS-TP shared ring protection architecture, including wrapping, short-wrapping and steering, which can help to describe the MSRP model in G.8152.2 Annex A.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/.
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
The status of the referred document, is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
The status of the referred document, is "Proposed Standard".
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced document are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119./
/
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031./
/
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385, February 2006, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385./
/
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446./
/
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586./
/
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654, September 2009, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654./
/
/
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920./
/
[RFC6371] Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371, September 2011, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371./
/
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378, October 2011, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378./
/
[RFC6941] Fang, L., Ed., Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Mansfield, S., Ed., and R. Graveman, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security Framework", RFC 6941, DOI 10.17487/RFC6941, April 2013, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6941./
/
[RFC6974] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D., Fondelli, F., Corsi, M., Wu, B., and X. Dai, "Applicability of MPLS Transport Profile for Ring Topologies", RFC 6974, DOI 10.17487/RFC6974, July 2013, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6974./
/
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126./
/
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
Reference should always be made by RFC number (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References should not be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or to IETF RFCs categorized as Historic or Experimental. Normative references must only be made to IETF RFCs that are Standards Track or to Informational RFCs that have IETF consensus.
|
|
