Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05
review-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05-genart-lc-housley-2014-01-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-01-16
Requested 2014-01-02
Authors Dan Frost, Stewart Bryant, Matthew Bocci, Lou Berger
Draft last updated 2014-01-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05-genart-lc-housley-2014-01-03
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-01-03

Review
review-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05-genart-lc-housley-2014-01-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2014-01-02
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary:  Ready for publication.


Question:

Should this document be an update to the MPLS-TP Framework (RFC 5921)?
I am not sure.  RFC 5921 does make it clear that it covers only point-
to-point transport paths.  The answer may be further complicated by
the fact that RFC 5921 is joint work with the ITU-T.


Major Concerns:  None.


Minor Concerns:  None.


Other Comments:

In the first sentence of Section 1, please define MPLS-TP as follows:
OLD:
   The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile is the ...
NEW:
   The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is ...

Please add TE-LSP to the terms defined in Section 1.2.

In Section 5.1, I cannot understand this sentence:
>
>  Per [RFC6373], the definitions of P2MP, [RFC4875], and GMPLS
>  recovery, [RFC4872] and [RFC4873], do not explicitly cover their
>  interactions.
>
I think that the references are getting in the way.  I think the
message is: "the definitions of P2MP and GMPLS recovery do not
explicitly cover their interactions."  If I am correct, then some
commas need to be removed.

The phrase "MPLS Transport Profile" appears many places, and it would
be easier if they were replaces with "MPLS-TP" for consistency.