Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by David Black. These would be useful improvements.

Section 2.1

This requirements draft uses RFC 2119 terminology (MUST, SHOULD, etc.).
In addition to incorporation of the RFC 2119 boilerplate (already done),
please explain that these requirements are being stated as requirements
of OAM mechanism and protocol *development*, as opposed to the usual
application of RFC 2119 requirements to an actual protocol, as this
draft does not specify any protocol.

Section 2.3

  OAM:  Operations and Management
  OA&M: Operations, Administration and Maintenance.

That's an invitation for confusion.  The OA&M acronym is not used
in this draft - please remove it from this section.

Section 4.1

The discussion of limits on proactive OAM loading should probably
explicitly say that reactive OAM (dealing with something that has gone
wrong) may violate these limits (i.e., cause visible traffic
degradation)
if that's necessary or useful to try to fix whatever has gone wrong.

Also, a wording nit:

  In practice, of course, the requirements in the previous paragraph
  may be overcome by careful specification of the anticipated data
  throughput of LSRs or data links,

"overcome" --> "satisfied" or "met"

A nit that we need to remember to fix prior to publication (thanks to Bert Wijnen for catching this):

  [RFC3812]        Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A. and T.
                    Nadeau, "MPLS Traffic Engineering Management
                    Information Base Using SMIv2", RFC3812, June 2004.

  [RFC3813]        Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A. and T.
                    Nadeau, "MPLS Label Switch Router Management
                    Information Base Using SMIv2", RFC3813, June 2004.

I do not know how these people pick up the titles
of the references, but the titles of these two RFCs
do NOT INCLUDE the "Using SMIv2" part.