AD evaluation of: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt

Here are my review comments

More or less serious:

- I believe that not the base protocol document should request 
  assignment of a BC Model ID, but instead this document should
  do so.

- the IPR section is NOT inline with sect 10 of RFC2026.
  What needs to happen is that we get a proper IPR section, and 
  Cisco needs to send an IPR claim/statement to the IETF 
  executive director. 

Nits/admin

- tell RFC-editor to remove the section about SUB-IP related
  information. Or better remove it in next revision.

- sect 1, 2nd para, last sentence
  add the word "models" at the end of the sentence?

- If we decide that this doc requests assignment of BC Model ID
  (which is my preference) then we need an IANA Considerations 
  section.

- Try to be consistent with the base protocol spec in that you use the
  same capitalization/spelling for "Bandwidth Contraints Model".
  There are possibly other such strings/prhases as well that could
  benefit from more consistency.

Thanks,
Bert