Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02
review-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02-genart-lc-krishnan-2015-10-21-00

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>

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2015/10/20
IESG Telechat date: 2015/10/22

Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard but 
I do have some comments that you may wish to address.

Minor
=====

* MBZ is not expanded. I understand this should expand to "Must Be Zero" and 
it MUST be set to zero by senders and MUST be ignored by receivers. It makes 
sense to add this to the terminology section or before first use.

* Please cite as references RFC2474 for the DSCP field and RFC3168 for ECN.

* Section 2.2.1:

"the first six bits of the Differentiated Service field"

Not sure if this "first" qualification is required as RFC2474 defines the 
DSCP field to be *exactly* 6 bits long. I have a similar issue with the word 
"following" in the definition of the ECN field as they are two separate fields.

* Section 2.2.2: Figure 4 seems to be incomplete and it has no mention of 
either DSCP or ECN. Is this correct? Probably would also explain where the 28 
byte padding requirement comes from.


Editorial
=========

* Section 2.2.1

s/MUST extracts/MUST extract/

Thanks
Suresh