I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-05.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2009-08-23
IESG Telechat date: 2009-08-27

Summary: Almost ready
--------

Minor issues:
-------------

1) The draft uses RFC2119 terminology although it is not standards track.
But there are multiple cases where it is unclear to me that the RFC2119 
terms have been used consistently. The philosophy applied is not clear, 
and is not explained in section 3. Three examples:

Section 4.1.3:

> This document does NOT recommend ...

An isolated NOT is not defined in RFC2119. Probably the sentence
needs to be rewritten using SHOULD NOT, if that is the intention.

Section 4.1.5:

>   Hence, to ensure successful delivery of layer2 frames carrying MPLS
>   packets and realistic benchmarking, it is recommended to set ...

Why is this one not RECOMMENDED?

Section 4.1.6:

>   The TTL value in the frame header must be large enough to allow a
>   TTL decrement to happen and still be forwared through the DUT. The
>   TTL field may either be MPLS TTL, IPV4 TTL, or IPV6 Hop Limit
>   depending on the exact forwarding scenario under evaluation.
>
>   If TTL/Hop Limit Decrement, as specified in [RFC3443], is a
>   configurable option on the DUT, the setting SHOULD be reported.

must, may, SHOULD?

2) Section 6 lists 8 characteristics that could be measured but
only specifies how to measure the first 5. That's OK, but I find that
this phrasing:

>   However, this document focuses only on the first five categories,
>   inline with the spirit of RFC2544. 

gives no guidance whatever about the status of the last 3 categories.
At least, I'd expect to see a statement that they were left for future
work, or that they are left for vendor choice.