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


ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 


IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 


security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 


these comments just like any other last call comments.







The draft is informational and identifies and analyses gaps that must be 


addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and applications to 


be used with IPv6-only networks.




The document appears ready for publication.



The security considerations section (section 8) only states that 


changing the address family used for MPLS network operation does not 


fundamentally alter the security considerations of the existing 


protocol. Which is basically correct. It could have been interesting to 


look at the gaps analysis from a security perspective and see which of 


the MPLS IPv6-only gaps has security implications that need to be 


addressed. I.e. which gaps are security related. However, that is not 


essential.




Comment:
1. Abstract and Section 1:


the sentence "This document is not intended to highlight a particular 


vendor's implementation (or lack thereof)" sounds odd. Is there a WG 


discussion background or why is this document speaking of one 


"particular vendor's implementation"?




Nits:
- section 3.3.1.1. EVPN


formating: do you want to add one line at the end of the section: "Gap: 


Minor...."




I did not find anything else in my review.


Thank you and best regards.

Tobias