Original text:
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet architecture RFC8655 and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework I- D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.  The reader is assumed to be <del> familiar with these documents and any terminology defined therein. </del>  The following terminology is introduced in this document: necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight. <del> The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet may be of any type (MPLS- LDP, MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP RFC5921, or MPLS-SR I-D.ietf-spring-segment- routing-mpls).  The LSP (F-Label) label and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as well as the forwarding parameters.  Note that the possible use of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label may be the only label received at the terminating DetNet service. </del>  4.2. A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control Word (PWMCW) defined in RFC4385.  The d-CW formatted as shown in fig_detnet_cw MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app- <del> flow data. </del>  the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM for more information DetNet OAM.  4.4. The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated 6. <del> Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in I- D.ietf-detnet-security.  General security considerations are described in RFC8655.  This section considers exclusively security considerations which are specific to the DetNet MPLS data plane. </del>  Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are

Reviewer comments:
Fixing the comments received during the IESG review.
MPLS document
MPLS: All 01-27 changes updated
Done

Revised text:
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet architecture RFC8655 and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework I- D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.  The reader is assumed to be  <ins> familiar with these documents, any terminology defined therein and basic MPLS related terminologies in RFC3031. </ins> The following terminology is introduced in this document: necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight.  <ins> The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet is not restricted regarding any method used for establishing that LSP (for example, MPLS-LDP, MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP RFC5921, MPLS-SR RFC8660, etc.).  The LSP (F-Label) label and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as well as the forwarding parameters.  Note that the possible use of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label may be the only label received at the terminating DetNet service. </ins> 4.2. A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control Word (PWMCW) defined in RFC4385.  The d-CW formatted as shown in fig_detnet_cw MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app-  <ins> flow data.  This format of the d-CW was created in order (1) to allow larger S/N space to avoid S/N rollover frequency in some applications and (2) to allow non-skip zero S/N what simplifies implementation. </ins> the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM for more information DetNet OAM. <ins> Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for further study. </ins> 4.4. The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated 6.  <ins> General security considerations are described in RFC8655. Additionally, security considerations and a threat analysis are described in I-D.ietf-detnet-security.  This section considers exclusively security considerations which are specific to the DetNet MPLS data plane. </ins> Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are