Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-08
Requested 2015-08-27
Authors Thomas Nadeau, Luca Martini, Stewart Bryant
Draft last updated 2015-09-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Loa Andersson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-05-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-09-04
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-09-04


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-vccv-for-gal-05

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 9/4/15

IETF LC End Date: 

IESG Telechat date: 


Summary: this document is ready with minor issues


Major issues:




Minor issues:




Section 3 includes the following text:


   When the PW CW is not used, the Type 4 MPLS VCCV Control Channel (CC)

   type defined in this section MAY be used.  This is referred to as

   VCCV CC Type4 throughout the rest of this of this document.  VCCV

   Type 4 uses the encapsulation shown in Figure 1 in which the presence

   of a GAL at the end of the MPLS label stack indicates that the packet

   carries a VCCV message.


Two issues here: 



Line 3 includes a disturbing typo as the type is referred to in the rest of the document as ‘VCCV CC Type 4’ (with a space)



I understand the MAY in the second line to be directed to the implementers and this is fine. However, what about the operators who own network devices that have implemented this option? From reading the first section
 I indirectly get that the operators SHOULD activate this option. Maybe a separate paragraph can include this recommendation.




Manageability Considerations – is there a requirement for all devices in a given network to activate the new type support, or a mix of routers supporting and not-supporting this option does not cause a problem?



Section 9.1 – I assume that at publication Bit X (0x0Y) is supposed to be changed to Bit 3 (0x08)