Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-11
review-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-11-rtgdir-lc-eastlake-2024-10-29-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of
the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-11
Reviewer: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Review Date: 29 October 2024
IETF LC End Date: 11 November 2024
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should
be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This appears to me to be a well written, high quality draft. My comments
below are mostly wording quibbles. It is a draft targeted to become an
Informational RFC specifying the architectural framework for MPLS Network
Actions.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
These are all very minor issues:

Section 2.1 says "... this framework does not place any limitations on an
MNA solution." seems a little too strong. If this is just in the context of
scope combinations from the earlier part of that sentence, suggest
saying "... this framework does not limit the combinations in an MNA
solution."

Section 2.2 says "Other alternatives may also be possible and should be
specified by the solution." which could be misinterpreted to imply that a
solution should specify some other alternative. Suggest replacing with
"Other alternatives may also be possible. The solution should specify the
alternative adopted." or the like.

Section 2.3 final one sentence paragraph has too many "it"s in it for my
taste. Is this just saying that a node that does not support MNA does not
make use of MNA?

Section 7, 2nd paragraph: I think the second sentence needs a little more
qualification. Perhaps change to "... prevents link traffic observation
covertly acquiring the label stack ..."

Nits:
Section 5 first line, it is not the actions that must contain the items in
the list but the document, so replace "and" with "that" or the like.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email protected]