Hello, I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
Disclaimer: Please note that I am a transport protocol researcher and thus not familiar with details of the MPLS OAM mechanisms. Generally, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap doesn't raise apparent transport area issues. Thus, it seems to be ready for publication. Several editorial nits are listed below. Editorial: ---------- Abstract: s/a LSP/an LSP/ Section 2: s/a LDP/an LDP/ Section 3.3.1.3: s/include the the FEC Stack/include the FEC Stack/ (also note the inconsistent capitalization of "Stack" in this paragraph) Section 3.3.1.3: s/E.g. In the/E.g. in the/ Section 4.1.1: s/Figure 7.The label/Figure 7. The label/ Section 4.4: s/an Return Code/a Return Code/ Best regards Michael _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
