Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-08.txt
Review: Spencer Dawkins
Date: 3 januari 2005 

This document is almost ready for publication as Proposed Standard. I
have one question, in 4.1:


- In 4.1, some of the "not significant" bits "SHOULD be set to 0" -
  don't we usually "MUST be set to 0, SHOULD ignore on receipt" in
  similar cases?

Minor Nits:

- The first paragraph of section 2 dumps a BUNCH of unexpanded
  acronyms on the reader! Some are expanded two or three sentences
  later, but the effect is confusing. Maybe a list of acronyms and
  expansions as part of the first sentence? I hate to inflict a
  request for ASCII art on the editor at last call time, but if these
  entities could be presented as a protocol stack (at least some are
  described as "protocol layers"), that would help, too.

- In 4.2, s/only one of label can appear/only one label can appear/