Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com> 
Review Date: 20-May-2005 (2nd review post IETF-LC)
IETF LC Date: 14-May-2005
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.
I reviewed version -04 of this document, and I had a number of minor comments. Most of them have been solved, but still I need to comment on a few remaining minor issues.

Minor issues:

- Rule of 5 authors. The draft lists 6 authors, of which 2 of them are listed as Editors. While this is not an impediment for its publication, certainly it brakes the RFC Editor's rule of 5 authors.

- In version 4 I had this comment:
   On Section 3.1, first paragraph, the text reads:

     The structure of ACH TLVs that
     MAY follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in the
     following sections.

I am not sure what the text wants to say, because it mean want to say either:

a) The structure of ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV Header ...
b) The structure of ACH TLVs that can follow an ACH TLV Header ..

If the intention is a), then this text should be written in Section 3.3, which is the section that describes the ACH TLV object. If the intention is b), then it is correctly placed, but please do use "can" instead of "MAY".


The authors clarified that the intention was to express "a". Now in version 5, the text has been moved to Section 3.3, which is the correct Section. However, I still have a problem with the wording "that MAY", because I think it will cause confussion. The text is a restrictive relative clause. I don't understand how normative text MAY can be included in a restrictive relative clause, whose purpose is to restrict the set of ACH TLVs to only those who follow the ACH TLV header. I will argue that, as written, is unimplementable.

So, I suspect that you are trying to say the following (please review
carefully):

"ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs that follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in this section."

In the above paragraph, the first sentence express the optionality of ACH TLVs to follow or not an ACH TLV header. The second sentence says that the rest of the section is devoted only to the subset of those ACH TLVs that follow an ACH TLV header. Nothing is said about ACH TLVs that do not follow an ACH TLV header.


- New issue: there is a note at the end of Section 4.2.1.1. 
Unfortunately, the note contains a normative statement (MUST). Normative statements are incompatible with the definition of a note, which merely adds some additional explanation to the text. I would suggest move the sentence of the note that contains the normative statement outside the note, in which case there might be a need for some introductory text.

- Typo in Section 4.2.1.2: s/MPLSsection/MPLS section