Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be 
fixed before publication.

After the -06 version was posted, IESG discussion resulted in a couple of 
RFC Editor notes that address the open issues from the Gen-ART review of -05.

The following 3 IANA-related nits still need attention:

- In Section 4.1, remove the note to IANA after 2) and instead insert this 
instruction into Section 7.

- In Figure 4, the type is TBA.  Add an instruction to Section 7 for IANA 
to fill this in after it is allocated.
 
- In the fourth bullet in Section 7, please state that the registry is created 
by the MLN-EXT draft if that is the case.

It looks like IANA has figured out at least the third of these, but follow-up 
w/IANA is already needed because one of the RFC Editor Notes removes an 
IANA Action.  That follow-up should be used to confirm that the 
planned IANA Actions match what was intended.

The entire Gen-ART review of the -05 version is below.

Thanks,
--David


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black, David
> > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:01 PM
> > To: 'gen-art@ietf.org'; donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com; hshah@force10networks.com;
> > nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com; attila.takacs@ericsson.com
> > Cc: Black, David; Lou Berger; Deborah Brungard; Adrian Farrel; Daniel King; 'ccamp@ietf.org'
> > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-05.txt
> > 
> > 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 comments you may receive.
> > 
> > Summary:
> > This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described in the review.
> > 
> > This draft describes the use of a GMPLS control plane to configure explicit forwarding in Ethernet
> > bridges for PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering).
> > 
> > In general, the draft is in good shape; the two open issues are in Section 5.1.2 and are minor:
> > - Is the "has to allocate a VID" statement in Section 5.1.2 correct when shared forwarding
> > 	is in use as described in Section 3.1 ?
> > - The error value: MPLS Label allocation failure (9) appears to be inconsistent with the
> > 	second bullet in Section 7 that requests IANA to allocate a new error value: "PBB-TE
> > 	Ethernet Label VID allocation failure" (suggested value: 35?)  for this case.
> > 
> > Nits:
> > 
> > In Section 2, what are the I and B components of an IB-BEB?  Interface and Bridge?
> > 
> > In Figure 1, the VIP acronym is not in Section 2's list of acronyms.
> > 
> > In Section 4.1, remove the note to IANA after 2) and instead insert this instruction into Section 7.
> > 
> > In Figure 4, the type is TBA.  Add an instruction to Section 7 for IANA to fill this in after it is
> > allocated.
> > 
> > In the fourth bullet in Section 7, please state that the registry is created by the MLN-EXT draft if
> > that is the case.
> > 
> > idnits 2.12.04 ran clean.