Document:   draft-ietf-mpls-oam-frmwk-03.txt
Reviewer: David Black
Review Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:24:27 -0500 
Telechat Date:  Thursday 12/01/2005

Summary: Ready with nits

Note: this draft was reveiwed along with draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-06.txt

Review:
-------
The framework draft is in much better shape (than the requirements draft),
as the minor issues identified below appear to be reasonable to address via an RFC
Editor Note.

Section 3.1.1 Enumeration and Detection ...

Discontinuities in the MPLS Encapsulation paragraph -
FEC acronym used without prior expansion or definition.

Misordering paragraph - mention of TCP's ability to correct
misordered received packets should also point out that
misordering can cause TCP to retransmit some of the misordered
packets.  This is important in order to not leave the impression
that TCP is insensitive to misordering.

Figure 1 is split across pages.

Section 7 Security Management - please weaken the following wording
in the second paragraph:

    OAM messaging does address existing security concerns with the 
    MPLS architecture. i.e. through rigorous defect handling ...

To:

    OAM messaging can address an existing security concern with the 
    MPLS architecture, as through rigorous defect handling ...

The original text could be misread to imply that all security
concerns can be addressed via OAM messaging, which is definitely
not intended.

Third paragraph - what is "trusted space"?  If this is "a single
provider's network", use that terminology instead.