Many thanks for your (once again) detailed review, Peter! And thank you Curtis for making the fixes. One comment below: >> Make all references to the expansion of ECMP read "Equal-Cost Multipath" for >> consistency with RFC 2991. > > ECMP is expanded on first use in compliance with RFC Editor quidelines > for abbreviations. ECMP is also expanded on first use within each > section where it is used with the exception of one place where ECMP is > contained in a verbatim excerpt in a quote from RFC6374. I thought Peter was referring to the fact that your draft has some variation on the way the term is expanded, even outside verbatim examples: > % grep -i 'equal' draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:94: than parallel links includes Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:148: Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:149: Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) is a specific form of multipath in > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:229: Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load-balancing MUST NOT be performed > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:288: following paragraph in "Section 2.9.4 Equal Cost Multipath" gives the > … > % grep -i "equal" rfc2991.txt > rfc2991.txt: allow "Equal-Cost Multipath" (ECMP) routing. Some router > … I think you could align other instances than those relating to verbatim text from RFC 5960 or 6374. Anyway, minor things. I have balloted no-objection for this draft for the Thursday's IESG telechat. Thanks for your hard work, all. Jari