Hi Roni,
Thanks for your review and comments!
Please see some replies inline...
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:54 PM
To:
draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-Art LC review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2016-6-30
IETF LC End Date: 2016-7-4
IESG Telechat date: 2016-7-7
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 2.1 "C (Co-routed path) bit: This informs the remote T-PE/S-PEs
about the properties of the underlying LSPs. When set, the remote
T-PE/S-PEs need to select co-routed LSP (as the forwarding tunnel) as the
reverse PSN tunnel. If there is no such tunnel available, it may trigger the
remote T-PE/S-PEs to establish a new LSP." Why are you using non normative
language here "need to" instead of MUST or SHOULD while for the S bit
normative language is used?
"SHOULD" seems more proper here.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In the abstract "TE" is not expanded, only later in the document
OK, will expand it in the next revision.
Best regards,
Mach