[mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits:

Comment:
=========
- 4.1, paragraph 3:
Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be have
sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements?  (And if so, is there a
reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?)

Nits:
====
-1, paragraph 1:
Missing "the" before "MPLS Transport Profile "

- 1.0, last paragraph, last two sentences:
Who are “we” in these sentences? Does it make sense to talk about what
“we” are or are not “configuring”?

2.1.1, first bullet in first list:
consider s/"both sides should be"/"both sides are"

-4.1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence:
Missing words? (What is IANA requested to do with the TLV? I assume
register it. Also, what is the name of the new TLV?
Consider a cross-reference to table to for "this sub-registry"

-4.2: "Assignments of bit positions 0 through 31"
If I read correctly, that's all the bits. Is this the same as saying the
registry itself requires standards-action?

-5:
It's mildly odd to find the acknowledgements section between two
substantive sections.

-6, first paragraph:
Should "liveliness" be "liveness"?