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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   The LSP Ping Echo request IPv4/UDP packets is encapsulated with the
   MPLS label stack as described in previous sections, followed by one
   of the two encapsulation options:

IPv4 only?

And here Tianran Zhou's OPS DIR review:
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.