Subject: [Teas] Pre last call comments in draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned-upstream-label

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:20:00 -0500

Hi,

    I've done the typical review of this document in preparation for LC
(as shepherd) and have some comments:

1) I think section 2, 3, and the 1st paragraph of 4 are reasonable
background which was helpful getting the document to this level of
maturity, but now largely detracts from the focus of the document, i.e.,
a protocol extension.  I recommend (at your/the WG's discretion)
dropping this text or moving it to an appendix.

With this move the 2nd paragraph of section 4 can be integrated with the
introduction.

2) The last paragraph of Section6.1 and all of Section 6.2 -

These sections define procedures, but are in a section that is basically
an example.  They should be moved in section, and section 6.2 should
discuss "Label Change" using wavelength as an example is of course fine.
Nit/style level comments:

- at the end of section 1.  Perhaps s/onto/nodes downstream in
- section 5.2:
s/older implementation and doesn't understand/implementation that
doesn't support

- Section 6.1, the identified procedures should have references

- Section 3 (if kept/moved):

    - The above solution assumes the use of "symmetric labels" by
      default.

This may be true in some implementations, but certainly is true for all
or by specification.  Suggest drop or prepend "In some implementations, "

- Section 4 (if kept/moved): drop "it is  an undocumented fact that"

That's it.  Please let me know what you think.
Lou

---

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:05:02 -0500

Lou, Hi!

Much Thanks for the review.
We'll post a revision soon addressing all of these comments.

Regards,
-Pavan (on behalf of the authors).

> On 2/1/17, 2:20 PM, "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>