|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 8234 (2017)
|
|
Title:
|
Updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection in Automatic Protection Switching (APS) Mode
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
The referred RFC was approved by IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group).
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
G.8131 Amd.3 refers to the updates of the MPLS-TP linear protection in APS mode specified in the referenced document.
|
|
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, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119./
/
[RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271./
/
[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./
/
[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, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378.
|
|
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.
|
|
