Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-10
review-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-10-opsdir-lc-wu-2024-10-31-01

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document specifies the new IANA registry for the first Nibble Following a
Label Stack. In addition, this document provide requirements for registering
new values and recommendation for MPLS packet processing. This document is well
written and is on the right track, however, I do have a few comments for
questions and clarifications:

1. Abstract
Abstract said:
“this memo sets out some documentation requirements for registering new values.
Finally, it provides some recommendations that make processing MPLS packets
easier and more robust.”

Abstract also said:
“This document updates RFC 4928 by deprecating the heuristic method for
identifying the type of packet encapsulated in MPLS.”

I am wondering whether deprecating the heuristic method for identifying the
type of packet encapsulated in MPLS is seen as recommendation or requirements,
if yes, is such duplicated?

2. Abstract
Some place in the abstract uses the term "This memo", some place in the place
uses the term "this document", the same comment is applied to the introduction
section, suggest to make these terms consistent? Suggest to use the term "This
document".

3. Section 1
Introduction said:
“
This memo introduces a requirement and a recommendation. The first builds on
Section 2.1.1, and the second deprecates the use of the heuristic in Section
2.1.1.1 and recommends using a dedicated label value for load balancing. ”

Abstract also said:
“
this memo sets out some documentation requirements for registering new values.
Finally, it provides some recommendations that make processing MPLS packets
easier and more robust. ”

How many requirements and recommendations are specified by this document, one
or many, it looks the abstract is not consist with Introduction for this.
Secondly, where these requirements and recommendations are documented? Only
section 2.1.1 and section 2.1.1.1, or we have some other sections? My
suggestion is to have two clear sections to document requirements and
recommendations separately.

4. Section 3.1
Section 3.1 said:
“
The assignment policy for the registry is Standards Action.
“
Can we add reference for standard action, I think it should be RFC8126.