Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03
review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03-genart-lc-yee-2015-10-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-10-15
Requested 2015-10-08
Draft last updated 2015-10-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter Yee
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03-genart-lc-yee-2015-10-16
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-10-16

Review
review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03-genart-lc-yee-2015-10-16

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Oct-15-2015
IETF LC End Date: Oct-15-2015
IESG Telechat date: Oct-22-2015

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC, but has nits (and a question) that should be fixed before publication.
[Ready with nits]

The draft provides two mechanisms that can be used to provide protection to
static Multi-Segment Pseudowires against failure of switching Provider Edge
nodes.  I'm not familiar enough with the topic to determine if the mechanism
works as easily as described in the draft, but the concept helpfully does
not require invention of new protocols, so a determination of suitability
shouldn't be difficult for MPLS experts to make.

Question: Wouldn't it make sense to provide some explanation in Appendix A
for why it exists and when it should be used?  Currently it's just offered
as an alternate approach without real guidance.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits:

General:

Expand all acronyms on initial use.  Some of them are probably well-known in
the MPLS community, but their expansion wouldn't hurt either.

Specific:

Page 4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: replace "MS PW" with "MS-PW" to match
other usage in the document.

Page 4,  2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append commas after "which" and "PWs".

Page 4, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: replace the comma with a semicolon.

Page 8, Section A.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after
"link".

Page 8, Section A.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: append "entity" at the end
of the sentence.  As it is, the sentence ends ambiguously in an adjective.

Page 8, Section A.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "a SS-PW" to "an
SS-PW".