Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09
review-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09-genart-telechat-yee-2017-10-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-10-24
Requested 2017-09-26
Draft last updated 2017-10-16
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Peter Yee (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Peter Yee (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter Yee
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09-genart-telechat-yee-2017-10-16
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-10-16

Review
review-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09-genart-telechat-yee-2017-10-16

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2017-10-16
IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-16
IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26

Summary:  This well-written draft is an Experimental specification for how encapsulation is performed in the BIER architecture in order to optimally forward a packet through a multicast domain while not being burdensome to intermediate routers.

This draft is ready with issues.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues: This Experimental draft specifies that entries to its BIER Next Protocol Identifiers registry are to be done according to the "Standards Action" policy of RFC 8126.  It's not entirely clear to me whether RFC 8126's requirement that such entries be from Standards Track or BCP documents applies to the initial set of values.  If it does, then there's an issue here between RFC 8126 and this draft's desired status.


Nits/editorial comments: 

General:

Replace "ethernet" with "Ethernet" throughout.

Replace "ethertype" with "Ethertype" or "EtherType" throughout.  (IEEE usage is varies between the two, unfortunately.)

Specific:

Page 3, second bullet item: change "is" to "are".

Page 4, last paragraph: this paragraph is redundant to one it follows fairly closely in Section 1.  Consider striking it, although it's not harmful.

Page 5, Section 2.1.1.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "ISIS" to "IS-IS".

Page 9, OAM definition, 1st paragraph, second sentence: delete a duplicated "the" in the sentence.

Page 10, Section 2.1.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete a duplicated "in" from the sentence.