Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06
review-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06-genart-lc-garcia-2013-02-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-02-11
Requested 2013-01-31
Authors Luyuan Fang, Nabil Bitar, Raymond Zhang, Masahiro Daikoku, Ping Pan
Draft last updated 2013-02-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Miguel García (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Miguel García (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Miguel García
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06-genart-lc-garcia-2013-02-15
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-02-15

Review
review-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06-genart-lc-garcia-2013-02-15

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2013-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2013-02-11
IESG Telechat date:



Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as Informational 


RFC, but has some NITS that should be addressed.




Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:



- The RFC Editor rules require to expand each acronym at a first usage. I 


noticed that the draft uses Section 2 as a container of all the acronyms, 


but most of these acronyms have already been used in Section 1. So, I am 


not sure if the current text is acceptable to the RFC Editor. Perhaps the 


authors should send them a question. One potential idea to explore is 


leaving the first paragraph of Section 1 in there, and move the rest of 


the Section to a new Section 3, whose potential title is "Background". 


This will solve that problem.






- It appears that Section is alphabetically ordered, but the term "NMS" 


is misplaced.






- Section 3.3.2, first paragraph. The text refers to "PSW/SGW or ASNGW)". 


Section 2 expands "PSW" as Packet Data Network Gateway. I suspect the 


acronym is wrong, because the Packet Data Network Gateway is commonly 


abbreviated as PDN GW or P-GW. I have never seen PSW to refer to a PDN GW 


or P-GW.




/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain