Last Call Review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02
review-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02-rtgdir-lc-mcbride-2019-10-30-00

Request Review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-11-01
Requested 2019-10-04
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Adrian Farrel
Draft last updated 2019-10-30
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Mike McBride (diff)
Comments
prep for Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Mike McBride
State Completed
Review review-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02-rtgdir-lc-mcbride-2019-10-30
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/RMGnTqkf5xvnQLD9xdXW5vaTYws
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-10-30

Review
review-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02-rtgdir-lc-mcbride-2019-10-30

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review Date: Oct. 30 2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC)
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is near ready for publication. It has nits that should be at least considered prior to publication.

Comments:

Great job on the easy to understand draft. I probably don't want to know the history of why this is an individual draft but I am curious. I'll ask Adrian over a drink sometime.

Major issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits for your consideration:

Abstract:
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol"
-capitalize "communications" as you do in the Introduction.

4. Compatibility Considerations
..
"It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as described by the updated text presented in Section 3 so many implementations, lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have implemented a consistent and future-proof approach."

For better readability change to:
"It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as described by the updated text presented in Section 3. Therefore, many implementations, lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have implemented a consistent and future-proof approach." Or something similar.

Consider removing all instances of the word "so". 

thanks,
mike