I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-07.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date:  4 June 2007
IESG Telechat date: 7 June 2007

Summary: This draft is on the right track but needs an overview section.

Comments:

Substantive:
------------

The document states that it clarifies the use of addresses in GMPLS.
For an outsider, if this is clarification, the mud must be thick.
To my taste, after the terminology section, there should be an 
architectural overview (or a pointer to a suitable existing overview). 
It's very tough to jump straight into the details. Having just spent
half a day working on the generic locator-ID split, I found the way
this document uses "address" to refer sometimes to locator-address
and sometimes to identifier-address quite unclear.

I am puzzled by the fact that section 3 introduces the concept of
(un)numbered links but then sections 4 and 5 speak of (un)numbered
addresses. Which do you mean? Are they different? Why doesn't the
terminology section define (un)numbered links and (un)numbered
addresses, assuming they are different. Also, how can a link have
an address? I can see how one end of a p2p link can have an address,
but that makes two addresses per link. This is the sort of thing I 
would expect to see clarified in an overview section.

I see in the writeup that there was debate about the document category.
IMHO since the draft summarizes and collates information from other
standards track documents, but (in principle at least) defines nothing
new, Informational is the correct category.

I can't comment on the accuracy of the details in sections 4-8, but
I'm sure the WG has the expertise to get that right. The Security
Considerations strike me as weak, but I will leave that to the
Security Area review.

Editorial:
----------

The Abstract and the Introduction both include:
> This document does not define new procedures of processes
s/of/or/