Use of Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-08

Section 8 defines a method of defining or monitoring an LSP tunnel using the MIB modules defined in RFC 3812 and RFC4802. This is a little bit unusual for users of the MIB documents who would not have any indication in the respective documents about availability of the supplementary information, but it is not a reason not to publish this Informational document. It would be useful however to consider the following editorial comments: 

1. Add a note in the introduction to Section 8 that normative text for MIB objects is in the relevant RFCs that contain the MIB modules.

2. Use the normative names of the MIB modules MPLS-TE-STD-MIB for the MPLS TE MIB and GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB for the GPLS TE MIB. 

3. Clarify which of the MIB modules is refered to in the first phrase of Section 8.2 'The TE MIB module may be used for managing and monitoring ...'

The document states:

   o  Loopback address: A loopback address is a stable IP address of the
      advertising router that is always reachable if there is any IP
      connectivity to it [RFC3477], [RFC3630]. Thus, for example, an
      IPv4 127/24 address is excluded from this definition.

   o  TE Router ID: A stable IP address of an LSR that is always
      reachable in the control plane if there is any IP connectivity to
      the LSR, e.g., a loopback address. The most important requirement
      is that the address does not become unusable if an interface on
      the LSR is down [RFC3477], [RFC3630].

I find these explanations confusing. First, did you intend
to say that the address must be unique within the network
and that's the reason why 127.0.0.1 and ::1 do not qualify?
Secondly, what is the difference between the first and the
second item?

Acknowledgement section needs to capitalize names of persons.

With all of the turmoil around proper use of the term "address" I have to agree with the GENART reviewers assessment on this.

  
  Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter...

  This draft is on the right track but needs an overview section.

  The document states that it clarifies the use of addresses in GMPLS.
  For an outsider, if this is clarification, the mud must be thick.
  To my taste, after the terminology section, there should be an 
  architectural overview (or a pointer to a suitable existing overview). 
  It's very tough to jump straight into the details. Having just spent
  half a day working on the generic locator-ID split, I found the way
  this document uses "address" to refer sometimes to locator-address
  and sometimes to identifier-address quite unclear.

  I am puzzled by the fact that section 3 introduces the concept of
  (un)numbered links but then sections 4 and 5 speak of (un)numbered
  addresses. Which do you mean? Are they different? Why doesn't the
  terminology section define (un)numbered links and (un)numbered
  addresses, assuming they are different. Also, how can a link have
  an address? I can see how one end of a p2p link can have an address,
  but that makes two addresses per link. This is the sort of thing I 
  would expect to see clarified in an overview section.

  I see in the writeup that there was debate about the document
  category.  IMHO since the draft summarizes and collates information
  from other standards track documents, but (in principle at least)
  defines nothing new, Informational is the correct category.

  I can't comment on the accuracy of the details in sections 4-8, but
  I'm sure the WG has the expertise to get that right. The Security
  Considerations strike me as weak, but I will leave that to the
  Security Area review.

  Editorial:

  The Abstract and the Introduction both include:
  >
  > This document does not define new procedures of processes
  >
  s/of/or/