Hello,

I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors for their information and to allow them to address
any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with
any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-dir at ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Disclaimer: Please note that I am a transport protocol researcher and
thus not familiar with details of the MPLS OAM mechanisms.

Generally, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap doesn't raise
apparent transport area issues. Thus, it seems to be ready for
publication. Several editorial nits are listed below.


Editorial:
----------

Abstract: s/a LSP/an LSP/
Section 2: s/a LDP/an LDP/
Section 3.3.1.3: s/include the the FEC Stack/include the FEC Stack/
(also note the inconsistent capitalization of "Stack" in this paragraph)
Section 3.3.1.3: s/E.g.  In the/E.g. in the/
Section 4.1.1: s/Figure 7.The label/Figure 7. The label/
Section 4.4: s/an Return Code/a Return Code/



Best regards

Michael