Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02
review-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02-rtgdir-lc-hopps-2019-01-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-01-30
Requested 2019-01-16
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Andrew Malis, Stewart Bryant, Joel Halpern, Wim Henderickx
Draft last updated 2019-01-29
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Comments
Prep for Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Christian Hopps
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02-rtgdir-lc-hopps-2019-01-29
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-01-29

Review
review-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02-rtgdir-lc-hopps-2019-01-29

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-02.txt
Reviewer: Christian Hopps
Review Date: 1/29/2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

Choose from this list...

    This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

    The draft quality is high and very readable.

Major Issues:

    No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

    No minor issues found.

Nits:

- Page 3: "ACH" used w/o expansion.
- Page 3: "GAL" used w/o expansion.