Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-09
review-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-09-genart-lc-dupont-2017-07-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-07-07
Requested 2017-06-23
Authors Mike Taillon, Tarek Saad, Rakesh Gandhi, Zafar Ali, Manav Bhatia
Draft last updated 2017-07-08
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Mach Chen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-09-genart-lc-dupont-2017-07-08
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-07-08

Review
review-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-09-genart-lc-dupont-2017-07-08

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20170706
IETF LC End Date: 20170707
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - ToC page 3 and Acknowledgments page 21:
   Acknowledgements -> AcknowledgDements

 - 1 page 4: you should introduce the LSP abbrev too (BTW if GMPLS
  is a well known abbrev cf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
  LSP is not, IMHO because this abbrev has some other meanings in
  the IETF scope)

 - 4.5.1 page 9: The Node-ID address must match the source -> MUST
  or has to

 - 4.5.1 page 9: may -> can (RFC 2119 did not clearly specify that
  keywords are only in uppercase. Note only the previous item is
  really ambiguous).

 - 5.1 page 11 and 5.2.2 page 14: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 5.3 page 15 and 6 page 16: may -> can

 - 11.1 page 20 RFC3473: should be ReserVation -> ReSerVation
  but the bug is in the RFC 3473 title please don't fix...

 - Contributors page 21:
  * Orange CH is ambiguous: there are some cities named Orange,
   for instance a medium one in France. I suggest to put the CH
   on the next line
  * China -> PR China or CN (i.e., follow UPU or IETF specs)

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr