[mpls] AD review for draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-09

[James Guichard <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors,

Thank you for a useful and informative document. I have a few comments (line numbers from nits provided):

Jim> Warning from nits please review and fix where necessary.

Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (Using the creation date from RFC4928, updated by this document, for
     RFC5378 checks: 2004-10-19)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
     have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
     the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
     this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2780' is defined on line 571, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 602, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8300' is defined on line 622, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC9546' is defined on line 637, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
     draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

173          Deprecation:  regardless of how the deprecation is understood in
174              other IETF documents, the interpretation in this document is that
175              if a practice has been deprecated, that practice should not be
176              included in new implementations or deployed in deployments.

Jim> ‘deployed in deployments’? Do you mean ‘deployed in existing deployments’ or something else? Please make this clear.

297          2.  One can do better by using all of the non-SPLs (Special Purpose
298              Labels) labels[RFC7274] in the stack.

Jim> s/labels[RFC7274]/[RFC2474]

420          |  is deprecated to avoid inaccurate load balancing.  This means that
421          |  means that older implementations and deployments can continue to

Jim> s/means that means that/means that

456          With a registry, PSHs become easier to parse; not needing means
457          outside the data plane to interpret them correctly; and their
458          semantics and usage are documented.

Jim> The above paragraph is repeated. Please remove lines 456, 457, and 458.