Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-16
review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-16-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2025-02-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-01-28
Requested 2025-01-07
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Krzysztof Grzegorz Szarkowicz , Richard Roberts , Julian Lucek , Mohamed Boucadair , Luis M. Contreras
I-D last updated 2025-04-03 (Latest revision 2025-04-03)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Alvaro Retana (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -02 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Intdir Early review of -02 by Timothy Winters (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Mike McBride (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -14 by Lars Eggert (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -16 by Timothy Winters (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/TAfzJ1LjeF24LnC8sMDC3kNKdG4
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-02-10
review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-16-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2025-02-10-00

Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review Result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

The document is dense and not knowning the subject matter in depth took a bit of time. 
I do have some minor quibbles, from a terminology perspective.


## Section 2

s/This document makes use of the following term/This document makes use of the following terms/

##  3.3.1.  Customer Site

s/Customer Site/Customer Site (CS)/


3.3.1.  Customer Site

s/Customer Site/Customer Site (CS)/

## 

5.1.2.  TN QoS Layer

s/TN/Transport Network (TN)/


## Provider Network

there are acronyms for many different facets, but not for "Provider Network" ? 

## Acronyms

I ended up generating a version of the draft which had links to the acronyms and
that made it easier to get into.  Perhaps some suggestions for the RFC Editor?