Hi Russ, Thanks for the review. > Question: > > Should this document be an update to the MPLS-TP Framework (RFC 5921)? > I am not sure. RFC 5921 does make it clear that it covers only point- > to-point transport paths. The answer may be further complicated by > the fact that RFC 5921 is joint work with the ITU-T. I don't think so. That is, it is perfectly acceptable to build a P2P MPLS-TP system and that system could be built on protocol solutions that do not include P2MP support. As you say, 5921 explicitly says: This document defines the subset of the MPLS-TP applicable in general and to point-to-point transport paths. The remaining subset, applicable specifically to point-to-multipoint transport paths, is outside the scope of this document. ...so an "updates" relationship would render this statement doubtful. I'm pretty comfortable with the documents being separate. > Other Comments: > > In the first sentence of Section 1, please define MPLS-TP as follows: > OLD: > The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile is the ... > NEW: > The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is ... Sure. > Please add TE-LSP to the terms defined in Section 1.2. Sure. > In Section 5.1, I cannot understand this sentence: > > > > Per [RFC6373], the definitions of P2MP, [RFC4875], and GMPLS > > recovery, [RFC4872] and [RFC4873], do not explicitly cover their > > interactions. > > > I think that the references are getting in the way. I think the > message is: "the definitions of P2MP and GMPLS recovery do not > explicitly cover their interactions." If I am correct, then some > commas need to be removed. Yes, you're right. And a minor rewrite could make this even clearer. > The phrase "MPLS Transport Profile" appears many places, and it would > be easier if they were replaces with "MPLS-TP" for consistency. OK