Joint Working Team (JWT) Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile
RFC 5317

[Ballot discuss]
I want to thank Stewart and Loa for a great job on this document and on the general liaison effort. I intend to move to "yes" quickly, but wanted to make sure that my relatively minor comment is actually looked at by the authors.

Section 1, fourth paragraph, last sentence. This currently reads:

  ...As a result of the work
  of the JWT and the resulting agreement on a way forward, the fears
  that a set of next-generation network transport specifications
  developed by ITU-T could cause interoperability problems were
  allayed.

I was concerned that "the fears ... were allayed" could be mis-interpreted by some as "after investigation we found that there never was a problem". In fact, the issue is more that we found that the original fears were correct, but we put in place process changes that will result in the potential issues being avoided. The authors may be better than I am at proposing alternate text for this, but I would suggest:

  As a result of the work
  of the JWT and the resulting agreement on a way forward, process
  improvements / changes were put in place that will allow the
  ongoing work to avoid the fears that a set of next-generation
  network transport specifications developed by ITU-T could cause
  interoperability problems.

[Ballot comment]
[Before my comments, I'd like to say thanks to everyone in the IETF (and ITU-T) that worked
on this problem for all the hard work you did.  You guys really took one for the team, and I
personally appreciate it!]

A couple of nits:

Abstract

s/recommended of Option 1/recommended of Option 1/

Section 1 paragraph 4

s/this was supported/supported/

[Ballot comment]
[Before my comments, I'd like to say thanks to everyone in the IETF and ITU-T to resolve
this situation.  You guys really took one for the team, and I personally appreciate it!]

A couple of nits:

Abstract

s/recommended of Option 1/recommended of Option 1/

Section 1 paragraph 4

s/this was supported/supported/

[Ballot comment]
Section 1 says: "... a set of power point slides ..."; I suggest
  that "power point" be dropped.  These slides are available only in
  PDF, so their original format is not important.

  Section 2: s/fulfil/fulfill/

  Section 2: The final sentence of the section contains a missing
  reference.  Please provide it.

  Section 5: s/case by case basis/case-by-case basis/

  Section 7: The first sentence is missing a period.