[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.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://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html 

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-ldp-gtsm-06.txt 
Reviewer: Eric Gray
Review Date: 25-May-2012 
Intended Status: Standard 

Summary: 

No major issues found. This document is essentially ready for publication.

Comments: 

This document is mostly clearly written and easily understood.

Major Issues: 

No major issues found.

Minor Issues: 
============

Because this draft defines only a new bit assignment as an update to RFC 5036, it 
would have been cleaner to have only included the flags field as shown here:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|T|R|G|   Reserved              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

To maintain readability, the draft should still say where this field is (that it
is part of the Common Hello Parameter TLV).  

In addition, since the definitions of T and R are exactly as given in RFC 5036,
the text that currently repeats the definitions for T and R could better have 
been written as:

"T and R
   As specified in [RFC5036]."

This way of representing the changes makes it clearer what the actual changes
are.  However, this is a very minor issue.
_________________________________________________________________________________

I am curious why the text under Figure 1 explicitly includes the possibility that 
an LSR might implement GTSM capability negotiation but not implement GTSM.  But, 
again, this is a very minor issue.
_________________________________________________________________________________

NITs:
====

In the abstract, "packets" should be "packet's."

First sentence, first paragraph under Figure 1 - "meaingful" should be "meaningful."

Second sentence, second paragraph under Figure 1 - "but that it does not" should be
"but that does not."

--
Eric Gray