Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-06
review-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-06-rtgdir-early-bryant-2023-06-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-06
Requested revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-05-01
Requested 2023-04-17
Requested by Tarek Saad
Authors Deepti N. Rathi , Shraddha Hegde , Kapil Arora , Zafar Ali , Nagendra Kumar Nainar
I-D last updated 2023-06-15
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Comments 
We are preparing for WG last call and would like to kindly request an early RTG review.
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/2X494Z1z6go3HnTJJiExmFSrYQM
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Result Not ready
Completed 2023-06-15
review-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-06-rtgdir-early-bryant-2023-06-15-00
I have reviewed version 06 for the Routing Directorate

Firstly I apologise for taking so long to review this text.

I admit that this is not an aspect of MPLS that I would consider that I have
strong expertise in. I would therefore recommend that the text be reviewed by
someone that specialises in MPLS OAM. The person that I would recommend in the
first instance is Greg Mersky if he is available.

That said the document seems sound.

It obviously needs a security section. I would clone the security section of
RFC8287 and then think about anything that degrades the security. At the moment
I cannot see any security issues not covered by RFC8287.

The text could do with a little light polish of the English in places.

Something to fix in the next pass is the inconsistency with Nil sometimes this
is NIL sometimes it is Nil.