Last Call Review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04

Request Review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-07-27
Requested 2020-06-29
Authors David Allan, Donald Eastlake, David Woolley
Draft last updated 2020-07-03
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by David Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Aanchal Malhotra
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Review review-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04-genart-lc-housley-2020-07-03
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2020-07-03


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

Document: draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-07-03
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-27
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major Concerns:

Section 2 says:

   PPPoE data packet encapsulation is indicated in an IEEE 802[8] 
   Ethernet frame by an Ethertype of 0x8864.

This is very odd way to introduce this section.  IEEE Std 802-2001
covers the architecture for Project 802, not just Ethernet frames,
which are fully specified in IEEE 802.3.  However, the MAC frame,
MAC addresses, and Ethertypes are all described in this standard.
Second, you need to point to RFC 2516 to talk about PPPoE.  Third,
the Ethertype is not defined in IEEE Std 802-2001.  I suggest:

   The Ethernet payload [8] for PPPoE [3] is indicated by an
   Ethertype of 0x8864.

References:  I think that [9] needs to be a normative reference
because the reader cannot understand the QFI field without it.

Minor Concerns:

Introduction: You spell out the meaning of 5G, but not BBF.  Please
spell out BBF.  I note that 5G is on the RFC Editor "well known"
list (, but
BBF is not, so it would be fine to not spell out 5G. Likewise, please
spell out p2p, PPPoE, IPoE, DSLAMs, and OLTs the first time the term
is used.

Please explain the UE in the Introduction so that it is understood by
the time it is used later.

Please use the exact wording from RFC 8174 in the boilerplate:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.

I assume that it is okay to use "[1] [2]" instead of
"[RFC2119] [RFC8174]", but this is not the tradition.

Section 2: Please add a reference for the IANA registry.  I think
you are pointing to here:

Section 5: Please add pointers to the registry that is to be updated.
I think you are pointing here:


Abstract: I suggest that the Abstract say what is provided instead of
the needs of 5G.  It is also shorter.  I suggest:

   As part of providing wireline access to the 5G Core (5GC), deployed 
   wireline networks carry user data between 5G residential gateways 
   and the 5G Access Gateway Function (AGF). The encapsulation method 
   specified in this document supports the multiplexing of traffic for
   multiple PDU sessions within a VLAN delineated access circuit,
   permits legacy equipment in the data path to snoop certain packet
   fields, carries 5G QoS information associated with the packet data,
   and provides efficient encoding.

Section 4: s/document"s/document's/