Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-06.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:22:15 +0200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-07-01
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-09
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 1 page 5: references by name are better the references by number
  (by experience or for the 2.1 MEF reference)

 - 2.1 page 6, 3 page 8 (first): i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 2.1 page 6: missing word (or change for a by name reference style) in:
 more effectively MEF 17 [9].

 - 3 page 8 (second): i.e. -> , i.e.,

 - 3 page 8: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 8 page 14 (just a comment): why not the ISO IS in place of the IEEE?

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: for me OAM was the ATM OAM...