Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03
review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-06-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-06-09
Requested 2017-05-26
Draft last updated 2017-06-12
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -01 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Sandra Murphy (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tianran Zhou
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-06-12
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-06-12

Review
review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-06-12

Reviewer: Tianran Zhou
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document reviewed: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03

Summary:
No issue found. This document is well written, and is ready for publication.
Only a couple of nits, for the authors consideration:

1. in section 1, "Multipoint LDP (mDLP)" 

Is the acronym "mLDP"?

2. in section 1, 
"Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document at
   present and may be included in future."

At this stage, the I-D is stable. I think you can just say "Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document".

3. in section 6,
"MLDP" should align with the previous acronym in section 1, i.e. "mLDP".

And there is auto check result from the system:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5085' is defined on line 325, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379


     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above. 



Regards,
Tianran