Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02
review-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-02-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-02-24
Requested 2014-02-13
Authors Syed Kamran Raza , Sami Boutros , Luca Martini , Nicolai Leymann
I-D last updated 2014-02-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Dan Romascanu
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2014-02-24
review-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-02-24-00

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.



Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 2/24/14

IETF LC End Date: 2/24/14

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: ready with minor issues



Major issues:



Minor issues:



In the table in 2.2 – the RFC column points to RFC 5036 for the first two
entries. Actually RFC 5036 defines only the range for LDP FEC types, but says
nothing about the values. The right information seems to be ‘xxxx (this RFC)’ or
 ‘5036 and xxxx (this RFC)’



Nits/editorial comments:



Some acronyms are not expanded at first occurrence – FEC, LSR





Regards,



Dan