Hi Roni, Thanks for your review and comments! Please see some replies inline... > From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:54 PM > To: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-Art LC review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > Document: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date:2016-6-30 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-7-4 > IESG Telechat date: 2016-7-7 > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as standard track RFC. > > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > 1. In section 2.1 "C (Co-routed path) bit: This informs the remote T-PE/S-PEs > about the properties of the underlying LSPs. When set, the remote > T-PE/S-PEs need to select co-routed LSP (as the forwarding tunnel) as the > reverse PSN tunnel. If there is no such tunnel available, it may trigger the > remote T-PE/S-PEs to establish a new LSP." Why are you using non normative > language here "need to" instead of MUST or SHOULD while for the S bit > normative language is used? "SHOULD" seems more proper here. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. In the abstract "TE" is not expanded, only later in the document OK, will expand it in the next revision. Best regards, Mach