[Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: 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-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/



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

I like the solution, but the document could do with some editing.

Major:
1: Sec 1.  Introduction
O:  Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document at 
present and may be included in future. P:  Multi-segment Pseudowires support is
out of scope of this document. C: Once published as an RFC, the document
doesn't change. Could be "... may be addressed in a future document", but I'd
suggest leaving it out.

2: General
The document has many unexpanded acronyms, e.g: ACH in "... MPLS label stack
and IPv4 or IPv6 ACH."  In the Introduction you have: "such as P2MP ATM over
PSN." - while PSN might count as a well known acronym, it feels like, in an
Intro it should be less opaque - see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for RFC known
acronyms.

3: The "Controlling Echo Responses" section feels weak -- it says that  "The
procedures ... **can** be applied to P2MP PW LSP Ping." (emphasis added) - it
feels like this should be a SHOULD? I think better a description of the DoS
implications (other than just pointing at RFC6425) is also important.

Nits:
1: The document would benefit from some serious grammar checking -- e.g:
"... Echo Request to inform the receiver at P2MP MPLS LSP tail, of the P2MP PW
being tested." - extra ','. "For Inclusive P-Trees, P2MP MPLS LSP label itself
can uniquely identify the Throughout the document..." - missing 'the' - things
like this, and confusion over plurals (especially near acronyms) makes the
document hard to read / review.

2: "P2MP ATM over PSN.   Requirements for ... " - extra space (nit!)

3: Sec 8.  Security Considerations
"The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new security
considerations beyond that already apply to [RFC6425]." -- this sentence is
poorly formed. Perhaps "beyond those that..."? Or "beyond those in"?