Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-14.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 16 February 2011 IETF LC End Date: 21 February 2011 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: This document still has some minor issues mainly relating to the (specification of the) usage of the Length and Payload Type fields in the PW Control Word. There are also some editorial items that need fixing. Major issues: None Minor issues: s3.1: The encoding of the PT values is not specified. Should an explicit error behaviour for control words with PT set to something other than 1,2, 4 or 6 be specified? s3.1: I note that RFC 3985 fails to specify the unit of the Length parameter (presumably bytes/octets, but since it seems to be used in various different ways it might be application specific) and does not specify the encoding for the parameter. This specification propagates this omission. s3.3: FC Frames: How is the Length field in the control word used here? Are there constraints on the Payload Type for this case? s3.3: Discussion of encoding of ordered sets: Is there an upper limit on the number of ordered sets in a single PW packet? This isn't made explicit but the size of the Length field which is supposed to be used for 'short packets' possibly restricts the number of ordered sets. If this is not the case how is the length specified if the total is more then 64 whatevers (see the comment above on s3.1). s3.3: Discussion of encoding of ordered sets: What payload types are allowed for this case? s3.3: Discussion of FC PW Control Frames: How is the Length field in the Control Word used in this case? If it isn't used, how is the size of the frame determined? Nits/editorial comments: Abstract/Section 1: For whatever reason the RFC Editor deems MPLS-TP to be a well-known abbreviation but not MPLS-TE.. so I guess MPLS-TE better be expanded. s1, next to last para: s/by comparison to/by comparison with (or in comparison to)/ s1.1, para 1: expand GFPT. s3: Is [FC-FS-2] a sufficient reference for the definition of 8b/10b encoding? I can't see the full text so I can't tell. There are lots of jargon items relating to 8b/10b later in s3. s3: This section contains a number of FC jargon terms. Some of them (in the first set of bullet points - FC-SW, FC-P2P, FC-AL) are not expanded at all. Others in the second set of bullets (FLOGI, PLOGI, ELP) are expanded on second appearance a little lower down. Towards the end 10GFC and 16GFC may also need expansion or a reference. s3, next to last para: (just checking!) Is Service class F right? Others are numbers. s3.3: Might be clearer if organized into three sub-sections for the three types of item transported. s3.3: A reference for the definitions of the FC Service Class 4 values mentioned (SOFi4, etc) is needed. s7, next to last para: RFC 3821 appears to prefer FCIP rather than FC/IP as an abbreviation.