Many thanks for your (once again) detailed review, Peter! And thank you Curtis
for making the fixes. One comment below:
Make all references to the expansion of ECMP read "Equal-Cost Multipath" for
consistency with RFC 2991.
ECMP is expanded on first use in compliance with RFC Editor quidelines
for abbreviations. ECMP is also expanded on first use within each
section where it is used with the exception of one place where ECMP is
contained in a verbatim excerpt in a quote from RFC6374.
I thought Peter was referring to the fact that your draft has some variation on
the way the term is expanded, even outside verbatim examples:
% grep -i 'equal' draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:94: than parallel links includes Equal
Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied
draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:148: Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP)
draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:149: Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP)
is a specific form of multipath in
draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:229: Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP)
load-balancing MUST NOT be performed
draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:288: following paragraph in "Section
2.9.4 Equal Cost Multipath" gives the
…
% grep -i "equal" rfc2991.txt
rfc2991.txt: allow "Equal-Cost Multipath" (ECMP) routing. Some router
…
I think you could align other instances than those relating to verbatim text
from RFC 5960 or 6374.
Anyway, minor things. I have balloted no-objection for this draft for the
Thursday's IESG telechat. Thanks for your hard work, all.
Jari