Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03
review-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-10-29-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Document:                                  
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt

Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                               29 October 2015

IETF LC End Date:                       9 November 2015

IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A

Summary:                                     The document is well written, and
almost ready for publication. However, I have a few editorial issue that I’d
like
 the authors to address.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:



Q1:



‘RSVP-TE’ is expanded in the Abstract, but not in the main document. Please
expand on first occurrence also in the Introduction (last paragraph).



Same comment applies to ‘LSP’.





Q2:



There is no reference for RSVP-TE.





Q3:



Would it be possible to replace the last paragraph of the Introduction with the
Abstract text?





Q4:



Does ‘GMPLS’ need to be expanded on first occurrence?





Q5:



There is no reference to ‘GMPLS’ in sections 1 and 3.





Q6:



The text in section 7 says:



“This section records the status of known implementations of the

              protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of

              this Internet-Draft,…”



I am not sure whether we should use “Internet-Draft” terminology in a published
RFC, and I am not sure what time “at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft” refers to.



Perhaps you could say something like:



“This section records the status of known implementations of the

              protocol defined by this specification at the time of writing the

specification,…”