Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-09-01
Requested 2017-08-18
Authors Alia Atlas, Kishore Tiruveedhula, Chris Bowers, Jeff Tantsura, IJsbrand Wijnands
Draft last updated 2017-09-04
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Tony Przygienda (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Tim Chown (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Peter Yee (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-ldp-mrt-06-opsdir-lc-chown-2017-09-04
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-09-04



I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. 

This document specifies extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol(LDP) for routers to advertise MRT Capability in support of the creation of label-switched paths for diverse Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT), primarily for use with unicast and multicast IP/LDP Fast-Reroute. 

I am not a subject matter expert in the topic, but read the MRT-FRR architecture described in RFC 7812 before reviewing this draft. Overall the document is well-written, and is Ready for publication.  

The draft seems quite thorough, including consideration of a number of potential interactions to ensure appropriate exchanges of MRT capabilities consistent with RFC 5036.

In looking at the draft history, the current -06 version was published to address the issues raised by the Routing Directorate review.  There has only been one other update since the -04 version published a year ago.  

There are a number of typos in the document that I would expect the RFC Editor to pick up, but it would be nice to correct these before pushing the document, e.g., "Extension" singular on page 3, or "as foll If" on page 10.