--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-03.txt	2019-08-08 18:13:09.407901251 -0700
+++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04.txt	2019-08-08 18:13:09.427901759 -0700
@@ -2,21 +2,21 @@
 Network Work group                                             N. Nainar
 Internet-Draft                                              C. Pignataro
 Updates: 8287 (if approved)                          Cisco Systems, Inc.
 Intended status: Standards Track                                F. Iqbal
 Expires: February 9, 2020                                     Individual
                                                            A. Vainshtein
                                                              ECI Telecom
                                                           August 8, 2019
 
                   RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification
-              draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-03
+              draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04
 
 Abstract
 
    RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
    Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
    (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane.  RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack
    Sub-TLVs.  While the standard defines the format and procedure to
    handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the
    length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in
    the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability
@@ -89,23 +89,24 @@
 
 2.  Terminology
 
    This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029],
    [RFC8287] and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the
    same.
 
 3.  Requirements notation
 
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
-   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
-   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
-   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
+   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
+   capitals, as shown here.
 
 4.  Length field clarification for Segment ID Sub-TLVs
 
    Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines 3 different Segment ID Sub-TLVs that
    will be included in Target FEC Stack TLV defined in [RFC8029].  The
    length of each Sub-TLVs MUST be calculated as defined in this
    section.
 
    The TLVs representation defined in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of
    [RFC8287] are updated to clarify the length calculation as shown in