[RTG-DIR] Rtg-Dir Last Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

Hello, 
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology-02.txt
Reviewer: Eric Gray
Review Date: 10 August, 2020
IETF LC End Date: 11 August, 2020
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has potential minor issues and nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
Possibly omitted reference in the introduction (see Nits below)?

Possible ambiguity about which registry is referred to in the latter part of section 2.1 (see Nits below)?

Nits:

In the 1st line of the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction, the word "use" appears twice in a row.

In the 4th paragraph of the introduction, RFC 3032 is separately listed twice (i.e. - with the name "RFC 3032", and the link to the reference in each case, it is actually listed 4 times).

Note: I am not sure, but this may be more than a Nit - if, for instance, the intention was to list a different RFC.  The paragraph claims the draft updates RFC 7274 and RFC 3032 - but RFC 7274 claims to update RFC 3038, RFC 3209, RFC 3811, RFC 4182, RFC 4928, RFC 5331, RFC 5586, RFC 5921, RFC 5960, RFC 6391, RFC 6478, and RFC 6790 as well.  

Possibly one of these other RFCs was also meant to be included?  This does not seem very likely, however, because only RFC 3032 and RFC 7274 are listed as updated on the cover page.

I assume only one "registry" is referred to in the last sentence of section 2.1 (and - in fact - in the entirety of section 2.1).  In earlier sentences, the registry is explicitly named, or referred to as "that registry."  In the final sentence, there are two references to a registry - one of which refers to "the registry" and the other to "that registry."

As a Nit, I suggest using "that registry" consistently - unless a different registry is actually referred to.

In the 4th bullet in section 3, "an bSPL" should probably be "a bSPL."

In the Security Considerations section, 1st paragraph - "establsihed" --> "established" and "doucment" --> "document."
2nd paragraph - "the potential" --> "potential" (awkward using a definite article with a possibility).

--
Eric