Early Review of draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04
review-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04-rtgdir-early-huston-2016-08-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-08-16
Requested 2016-07-11
Draft last updated 2016-08-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Geoff Huston (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Geoff Huston
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04-rtgdir-early-huston-2016-08-16
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-08-16

Review
review-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04-rtgdir-early-huston-2016-08-16

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 ‚Äč

http://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-pals-mc-pon-04
Reviewer: Geoff Huston	
Review Date: 16 Aug 2016
IETF LC End Date: ? 
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: 

	No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:

	I am not a subject matter expert on ICCP and PW OAM signalling,
	but within the limitations of my lack of subject matter expertise 
	found the document clear in intent, and the description of the
	four proposed ICC RG parameter types to be clearly documented.  I
	found the document clearly readable both in terms of the
	introductory motivational text and the proposed parameter types
	to be used by ICCP.

Major Issues:

	No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
	No minor issues found.

Nits:
	There are some quibbles over the use of commas, but I'll leave this to the RFC Editor
	when they apply style guidelines to the document

regards,

Geoff Huston