Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08
review-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08-secdir-lc-tsou-2015-09-03-00

Dear all,



I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
 were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
 last call comments.

The document seems ready to go. I only found these minor nits:



The title of this draft indicates mib for MPLS-TP OAM ID but in the body MPLS
is used mostly and sometimes MPLS-TP appears, for example, both MPLS tunnels and
 MPLS-TP tunnels are mentioned. I'm not sure if they can be used
 interchangeable. Besides, I notice that the names for the objects all start
 with "mplsoamidxxx", which seems to address mib for MPLS OAM ID. Then it is
 not aligned with the title of this draft. A bit confused. Could the authors
 provide any clarification on this? A general suggestion is to make alignment
 throughout the document, including the title of the draft.



* Abstract:



> it describes Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM)

> identifiers related managed objects for Multiprotocol Label Switching

> (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile (TP).



I find this sentence hard to parse. Maybe s/related managed objects/related to
managed objects/ ?





* Section 1, page 3:

> MPLS LSP(Label



There's a missing space.





* Section 5.1, page 4:



> The mplsOamIdMegTable is used to manage one or more Maintenance

> Entities (MEs) that belongs



s/belongs/belong/





* Section 6, copy&paste mistake



-- Source MEP id is derived from the IP compatible MPLS LSP

       mplsOamIdMeSinkMepIndex           = 0,



The description in the note should be sink MEP. There is already another line
to describe source MEP.





* Page 15:



> BFD



This is the first and only instance of BFD. Please expand. (and maybe reference
RFC5880)?





* Page 17:



"p2p" and "P2P" first used here. should probably be expanded.





Thank you,

Tina