Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.txt Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2015-05-18 IETF LC End Date: (I don't think that the IETF LC has started) Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary: - This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Note: I also have a question about a security statement in the draft that I don't know if it has been addressed. Comments: - Overview of the draft quality and readability. The document is technically sound. The document is sometimes a bit hard to read, but I guess that will be sorted out by the RFC Editor. - Anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding your review. I normally do my reviews by Word with change bars and comments, I've included that file for details. Major Issues: - I put the question on the security statement at the end of the second paragraph in the Introduction here. I'm not sure it is a major issue, but I want to lift to make sure that it is properly discussed. If I understand correctly "..., and is a security risk" refers to the fact that OAM packets might be sent over the attachment circuit(s) if the TTL is not set right. OAM packets on the attachment circuit as the specific problems this could involve is not listed as a security risk in 6073. The security section of 6073 talks about the possibilities that pay load packets are forwarded on to the attachment circuit, but does not say anything about OAM packets. Minor Issues: - I think I could say "No minor issues found" and say that everything else is nit, but since some of the thing captured in the word file are for clarity, e.g. the last paragraph in section 4 (fate sharing) and the first paragraph in section 5 (what MUST be inspected), so I guess that there are things that sits on the fence between minor and nits. However, I think that they are very easy to resolve, in that respect they can be treated as nits. - A second minor issue is that I find the Abstract less informative than I would want, it should be beefed up and clarified a bit. Nits: - The rest of the comments in the word file are nits, e.g.: -- Naming of the new channel (I think these to names refer to the same thing MPLS VCCV Control Channel (CC) GAL VCCV Control Channel Type -- expanding abbreviations the first time they are used -- expanding all abbreviations that is not on the RFC Editors list of well-known /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa at mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa at pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 Attachment: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.docx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document