Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-02-13
Requested 2017-01-30
Authors Weiqiang Cheng, Lei Wang, Han Li, Jie Dong, Alessandro D'Alessandro
Draft last updated 2017-02-13
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05-genart-lc-korhonen-2017-02-13
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-02-13


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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-??
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2017-02-13
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-02


The document is ready. I have few questions, though, that most likely are obvious to the document authors and to the WG.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

Not really an issue, but more of thinking out loud. There is no text in Section 3.2. what happens, say, when PE1 sends DHC+Status TLV and PE2 sends DHC+Switching TLV both reporting a failure of PW1. I am not sure if this is a relevant case, but I could expect there can be a sequence of events that cause these DHC messages to cross between PE1 and PE2?

Nits/editorial comments: 

* The document uses few acronyms without expanding them. Those should be checked.

* In Section 3.2.  s/table 1 ./Table 1.

*  There are multiple occurrences of "table 1" that should be "Table 1".
   There are multiple occurrences of "figure 5" that should be "Figure 5".
   There are multiple occurrences of "figure 1" that should be "Figure 1".

* Section 3.2. says "..using the DHC message above." Since the message is quite a bit above I would rewrite this as "..using the DHC message defined in Section 3.1."

* Section 3.2. protection procedures would greatly benefit clarity/readability having one or two signaling flow figures assisting the textual description how the PW failures are signaled between the PEs (using the DHCs and sometimes assisted with OAM messaging).