Florin, Dutta, Olen and Geraldine:   Document ready for publication: Not yet – Technical  and editorial issues need to be addressed   Technical mechanism:  Good mechanism and needed for internet.  Most technical issues are due to write-up, but without a clear mechanism interoperability issues will probably occur.   Resolution: 1.        Consider technical issue 1 2.        Fix obvious editorial errors – (section references, MS-PW, ordering of processing) 3.        Fix problems 2-4 in the text’s clarity and accurate 4.        Consider strongly rewording document – if you can do this within the WG (no further comment is made on this point)   Technical errors:   1.        Basic mechanism is good a.        N=1 Clear mine, N=0 Clear other than mine b.       C= Context – PBB-VPLS I-context (1), H-VPLS/BMACS = 0   2.        Mechanism to consider for operational issue              Problem 1: Negotiation is outside your context  (to be considered)          Negotiation being outside your context does not mean you cannot        flag that a flush has been part of a negotiated  Flush entity.         Have all users of MAC flush set a flag bit if the setting is negotiated.       This may help you debugging of this feature distribution.         Problem 2 (Technical/Editorial) – Clarity of mechanisms in text          Due to expert level of the authors, I assume in this write-up that the        lack of clarity is a documentation issue.          Sections 5.1.2 – 5.1.4 do not have a clear step by step processing.        It is not “what” you do that is the problem, but the order of the processing       That is not clearly specified.  I cannot tell if there is an ordering of the process.        An ordered list (1-n) is useful if it is ordered.  A clearly delineated set of steps.        Your references to the operations section should be 6 (5.1.2, 5.1.3)             I am not suggesting a specific ordering or language just a clean-up.         Why?  Because I know Florin to be an excellent author.  I suspect        that this text is the result of editorial hacks from the WG – but        the result I cannot tell how to process each section.          Editorial nit: MS-PW – is not defined (or I missed it).          Sections 5.2.1 – I could not follow the step by step processing of the        Packet until I made notes on the side.        Problem 3:  Technical/Editorial: I cannot tell the fallback case – must fix         Because sections 5.1.2-5.1.4 and 5.2.1 are not clearly written,       I cannot tell what the fall-back mechanism is if one side negotiates       And expects this option, and the other side does not.          Operational considerations try to address this, but the clarity of the        Text fails.        Problem 4:  IANA section – must fix       I do not believe this section provides the details required by IANA.     Please have your shepherd check do a pre-check with IANA – it will save you time.   Next steps: 1.        Consider problem 1 2.        Fix problems 2-4 and section errors   OPS-DIR reviewer comment:  I’m glad to help you form text or provide text.  Out of respect for the authors, I have only pointed the way to allow the authors the freedom to revise the text to address the issues.   Sue Hares shares at ndzh.com