Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt
Title:
  RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End
  Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
Reviewer:  Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date:  Oct. 3, 2006
IESG Telechat date:  Oct. 4, 2006

Summary:
  This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Comments:
  Disclaimer: I am not an MPLS expert, so I have reviewed the
  draft more for form than I have for content.

  By and large, the draft is well structured and written in
  clear English.  The draft proposes extensions for GMPLS to
  aid in the four types of end-to-end LSP recovery.  The IANA
  section and the Security Consideration section are provided,
  and appear more than adequate to me.

  The [FUNCT] normative reference is now an RFC, RFC 4426.

  In informative references, [CRANK] needs to be updated to -05,
  [FRR] is now an RFC (4090), [SEGREC] is now in -02, [TERM] is
  now an RFC (4427), and [XRO] need to be updated to -05.

  Nits:
  1/ SRLG used without expanding the acronym.
  2/ In S18, the last paragarph does not read smoothly:
   "To prevent from the consequence ..."  Also, note the
   E and T in "Extra Traffic" are capitalized -- how is
   Extra Traffic distinct from extra traffic (lowercase e and t),
   which is used in many other places in the document.
  3/ In the Abstract, the sentence ending with "...recovery that
   is protection and restoration." does not read smoothly to me.
   But, it may to the folks working in this area...just wanted
   to point it out.