Document: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-01-22
IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-29
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - in 1 page 2: in theory you should expend the VPN abbrev (it is not
  in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
  marked as well known even IMHO it should, so the "in theory")

 - 2.1.4 page 3: "unprocessable" is not in my dictonary
  (but it is known by google :-)

 - 2.1.9 page 5: (wording) it MUST be possible -> it MUST be allowed
  (IMHO the word "possible" doesn't go with a MUST)

 - BTW there are a lot of "it is ...". I am not convince it is
  a good wording in English (it is in French so I am half very used
  to see this and half prevented against this "gallicism"...)

 - 5 page 9: (question) for instance the R3/2.1.3 reason code
 is not here because it is defined in another document, isn't it?
 BTW if this document is draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-06.txt
 why is it not cited?

 - 7.1 page 9: PCE-P2MP-APP was published as RFC 5671