Document: Control Protocol Extensions for TDM Pseudo wires March 2008 
               draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-07.txt
Reviewer: Eric Gray
Review Date:  19 June 2008
IESG Telechat date: 19 June 2008

Summary: 
=======

This draft is nearly ready for publishing as a Proposed Standard

Comments:
========

Terminology and Acronyms:

Below is a list of not necessarily well-know acronyms and/or terms used in this draft that are not defined there.  These are listed in the order in which I first encountered them in the draft.

TDM
MPLS
PW
PE
FEC
AGI
SAII
TAII
TLV
T1
DS1
E3
T3
DS3
CESoPSN
TDMoIP
AAL (AAL1, AAL2)
CAS
J1 (attachment circuits)
CEP
CID
SAToP
MTU
PDU
VAD
RTP
Differential timestamping
SF
SSRC
CE

While it is fairly clear that the authors know what these acronyms (or terms) mean, and it is highly probable that a majority of the readers do as well, it would help make the draft more readable if at least most of these were defined in a specific section - possibly including a reference for the cases where they are defined elsewhere, either directly or indirectly.  Or they could be explicitly expanded in the first instance.  Some of the acronyms are expanded at some point in the draft - though the cases where such expansions occur at the first instance of the acronym are not included in the above list.

_______________________________________________________________

The Abstract should include no references and a minimum of
(un-expanded) acronyms.
_______________________________________________________________

The phrase "G.711 encoding" is used without a reference.
_______________________________________________________________

TBA (by) IANA values?  There are for places where a value is listed as TBA by IANA.  Three are listed in an unnumbered table on page 4, and another occurs in Figure 1 ("Format of the TDM Options Interface Parameter").  It is not absolutely clear that this fourth one is the same as the third one in the table on page 4 (though it seems likely that it is).  In the IANA Considerations section, only 3 values are listed as needing to be assigned by IANA.  Given that the "TBA by IANA"
values have to be updated (most likely) by the RFC editor, it would be helpful if these were given slightly less ambiguous designations.
_______________________________________________________________

Out of curiosity, because inquiring minds want to know, why is "Structure-Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP)", RFC 4553 listed as Normative while "Structure-aware TDM Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN)", RFC 5086 is listed as Informative?