A Lexicography for the Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within the Context of the ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Architecture
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-lexicography-06

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Harald Alvestrand:

Nits:

The document introduction contains random blank lines. I expect that the RFC Editor will find them and make sure the paragraphs make sense.

In section 3.9.1, H-LSP is not called out as a definition. I noticed only because it maps to a specific ITU-T term. Text is clear enough that a reader shouldn't be bothered by this, however; not worth holding the doc for.

[Note]: 'The ITU-T wishes to refer to this document in G.8081 Amendment, to be consented in their meeting Feb 6 to Feb 17 so we should request expedited publication by February 10th.' added by Bill Fenner

[Note]: 'We need to request expedited publication, for the ITU to reference in G.8081 Amendment;
the ITU-T wishes to consent this document in their meeting in mid/early
February.' added by Bill Fenner

# Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
  Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
  to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

# Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
  key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes, from both WG as well as people more closely connected with
the ITU-T.

# Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
  particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
  complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

# Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
  you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
  perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
  or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
  event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
  indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
  those concerns in the write-up.

No concerns.

# How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
  the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
  silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Good consensus.

# Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
  discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
  separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

# Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
  ID Checklist items ?

Yes.

# Is the document split into normative and informative references?
  Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also
  ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note
  here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
  references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs
  are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Yes.  No normative refs to IDs.

# What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
  Standard, Informational?)

  Informational.