Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-02-05
Requested 2021-01-22
Authors Balazs Varga, János Farkas, Andy Malis, Stewart Bryant, Don Fedyk
Draft last updated 2021-01-29
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay Gurbani 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-05-genart-lc-gurbani-2021-01-29
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2021-01-29


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-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-05
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2021-01-29
IETF LC End Date: 2021-02-05
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready to be published as a Proposed Standard. 

Generally, the I-D is quite heavy on acronyms, some of which I suspect 
comes with the domain the I-D targets.  While I suspect that most
readers versed in the area will not have any problems expanding the
acronyms, I just wanted to mention this for the authors to perhaps
do a once-over to see if any acronyms need expansion.  (I list a couple
in the Nits section.)

Major issues:  0

Minor issues:  0

Nits/editorial comments: 2

- Figure 2: - What is "Tnl"? (Tunnel?)
            - What does "AC" mean?
- IDnits is reporting a couple of unused references ([RFC5921] and
  [RFC8660]), and that draft-ietf-detnet-mpls has been published as
  RFC 8964.