Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11
review-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11-opsdir-lc-wu-2017-02-01-00

Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review Result: Ready
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.

Summary:
This document defines objects for managing MPLS-Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
Linear Protection. I believe this document is ready for publication. However I
have a few comments which I hope authors of this document can consider: 1.     
Last two sentences of section 2, 3rd paragraph: I know these two sentences are
used to justify why we define MPLS TP Linear Protection MIB module, however it
is not clear how MPLS-TP linear protection MIB module works together with MPLS
TE MIB module? How MPLS-TP Linear protection MIB module is related to MPLS TE
MIB module defined in [RFC3812], if in this case, would it be great to discuss
the relationship between these two modules in the section 6? Why MPLS-TP linear
protection module consistent with base tables in [RFC3812]can justify we define
this new module? When we say "this should be seen as indicating how the MIB
values would be returned in the specified circumstances having been configured
alternative means", do we mean we focus on state data collection and
configuration data such as OAM identifier configuring through other means?

2.      Section 2
What do we mean by virtual? Is virtual information is related to network
virtualization or the network box that has been virtualized? Would it be great
to provide a reference to the term 'virtual information store'.

3.      Section 7
Section 7 focuses on Protection Switching Configuration and mplsOamIdMegTable
and mplsOamIdMeTable are defined in [RFC7697], suggest to remove this two
tables from examples of section 7.

4.      Section 9 said:
"In the case of the discontinuance of a protection switching
      control process, network operators will be notified.  However, the
      notification is controlled by mplsLpsNotificationEnable object,
      which is read-write.
"
It seems this bullet is incomplete. What the vulnerability implication is when
the notification is controlled by mplsLpsNotificationEnable object?