Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:21:02 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 2013-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2013-02-11
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as Informational 
RFC, but has some NITS that should be addressed.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- The RFC Editor rules require to expand each acronym at a first usage. I 
noticed that the draft uses Section 2 as a container of all the acronyms, 
but most of these acronyms have already been used in Section 1. So, I am 
not sure if the current text is acceptable to the RFC Editor. Perhaps the 
authors should send them a question. One potential idea to explore is 
leaving the first paragraph of Section 1 in there, and move the rest of 
the Section to a new Section 3, whose potential title is "Background". 
This will solve that problem.

- It appears that Section is alphabetically ordered, but the term "NMS" 
is misplaced.

- Section 3.3.2, first paragraph. The text refers to "PSW/SGW or ASNGW)". 
Section 2 expands "PSW" as Packet Data Network Gateway. I suspect the 
acronym is wrong, because the Packet Data Network Gateway is commonly 
abbreviated as PDN GW or P-GW. I have never seen PSW to refer to a PDN GW 
or P-GW.

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain