Hi, Here are few nits I discovered during AD review. They should be taken with any other IETF last call comments that you receive. Thanks for the work, Adrian === PSN needs to be expanded in the title, Abstract, and Introduction. Please check for other acronyms like OAM. --- Since this is not a protocol specification, the RFC 2119 language does not apply in the way described in RFC 2119. I suggest you replace Section 1.3 with something like... Although this is a requirements specification not a protocol specification, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted to apply to protocol solutions designed to meet these requirements as described in [RFC2119] . --- I have a question about the architecture and model shown in Figure 1. Can the P2MP PW branch at an egress PE by having multiple attached ACs leading to different CEs? Perhaps this does not count as a branch in the PW, but it is a branch in the service. --- In Section 3.2 s/P-to-MP MPLS LSP/P2MP MPLS LSP/ --- Section 3.4.2 has... The Root PE and Leaf PEs of a P2MP PW MUST be configured with the same PW type as defined in [RFC4446] for P2P PW. In case of a different type, a PE MUST abort attempts to establish the P2MP PW. That seems a little drastic. Do you mean "MUST abort attempts to attach the leaf PE to the PW"? Similarly in 3.4.3. --- Section 4 might usefully refer back to the discussion of OAM. --- Section 5 is fine, but it is interesting to consider A solution MUST NOT allow a P2MP PW to be established to PEs that do not support P2MP PW functionality. It MUST have a mechanism to report an error for incompatible PEs. Does an egress PE even need to know that it is attached to a P2MP PW rather than a P2P PW? > -----Original Message----- > From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: 13 March 2014 16:22 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: pwe3@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [PWE3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-07.txt> > (Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS > PSNs) to Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to > Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: > - 'Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over > MPLS PSNs' > <draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-07.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-03-27. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > This document presents a set of requirements and a framework for > providing a Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire (PW) over MPLS PSNs. The > requirements identified in this document are related to architecture, > signaling and maintenance aspects of Point-to-Multipoint PW > operation. They are proposed as guidelines for the standardization > of such mechanisms. Among other potential applications, Point-to- > Multipoint PWs can be used to optimize the support of multicast layer > 2 services (Virtual Private LAN Service and Virtual Private Multicast > Service) as defined in the Layer 2 Virtual Private Network Working > Group. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements/ballot/ > > > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3