(This is my first one, so if someone has any feedback on my methods I 


welcome to hear them).







I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 


ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 


These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational 


area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these 


comments just like any other last call comments.




Summary: Ready with nits



This document is to clarify that the label advertising behavior for a 


Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) speaker during an LDP session is 


governed by the type and not the session's negotiated mode.





-- Nits:



 - The terminology 'LDP' is used in the Abstract, but not spelled out 


until the Introduction.







 - 'FEC' is used throughout the entire document and is not spelled out 


until Section 4, IANA Considerations. It should be spelled out at the 


top of the document.







Section 2, Label Advertisement Discipline, in the listing of the 


possible types:



	111	     - As negotiated (DU or DoD)
	112	     - Upstream ([RFC6389])
	113	     - Not Applicable
	114	     - Unknown



I think these should be capitalized as 'As Negotiated' and 'Not 


Applicable', and shortened to 'AN', 'NA', 'UP',and 'UK'  to provide 


consistency.






The draft says is updates '[RFC5036] [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], 


[RFC6388], and [RFC7140]' to indicate if the label binding 


advertisements are constrained or not. However, the draft only discusses 


the location in [RFC5036] and text for any updates.  It does not mention 


any specifics for the other documents and I do not know if it should 


matter or not.







The Nits checking raises a warning about a lack of disclaimer for 


pre-RFC5378 work.  This may be addressed already, but it is not 


mentioned in the document.