Subject: [mpls] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 23:02:53 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 3 --

   Multiple UROs MAY be present in a MPLS-PLDM Query
   indicating that an identical responses SHOULD be sent to each
   address-port pair.

A small point: I think this is not meant to be instructions to the entity
issuing the query, but to the entity responding.  Is that correct?  If
so, the "MAY" is a statement of fact, not a normative requirement, so it
should be "may" (or "might").

Also, the word "an" should be removed.

-- Sections 4.x --
Should the subsection titles of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 say "MPLS-PLDM"
instead of "MPLS-PM"?