[manet] AD Review for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classifica tion

Authors,

Please find the following comments from my review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. In summary I did not find too much to comment on and the document is clearly written. Thank you. Note that my comments contain line numbers from nits to help locate where in the document the comment applies:


  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of

     draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-12



  == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of

     draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-14



- Same author issue as previous documents please correct - s/Stan Ratliff/D Wiggins



77    1.  Introduction



79      The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].

80      It provides the exchange of link related control information between



Jim> Perhaps replace ‘It’ with ‘This protocol..’



84      that can be reused in DLEP messaging.  The base DLEP specification

85      does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP endpoints.  This



Jim> By using the term ‘base’ above it may not be clear that you are referring to the same specification as detailed in RFC8175. Either remove the term or add the reference to RFC8175.



86      document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow

87      identification on a more granular basis.  Specifically it enables a



Jim> The above is confusing. You state earlier that ‘DLEP specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP endpoints’ but then above you say ‘which provide flow identification on a more granular basis’ which implies that there is already flow identification in the protocol but this document makes it more granular. Please clarify.



95      specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]



Jim> missing ‘.’ at end of sentence above.

Thanks!

Jim

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]