Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-11

Request Review of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2014-10-05
Requested 2014-09-21
Authors Daniel King , Adrian Farrel
I-D last updated 2014-10-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -11 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Julien Meuric (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tomonori Takeda
State Completed
Review review-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-11-rtgdir-early-takeda-2014-10-05
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 16)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2014-10-05

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. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the
Routing Directorate, please see

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-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-11.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 3 October 2014
IETF LC End Date: Don't know
Intended Status: Informational

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

This draft is well structured and easy to read (even though this draft is over
60 pages). However, I think there are some points to be clarified for the
reader to understand more clearly.

Major Issues:

Minor Issues:
1) It is not clear whether interfaces in Section 2.3.2 intend to be exhaustive
or not. My reading is that interfaces between functional components in Fig.1
are the interfaces mentioned in Section 2.3.2. However, for example, it is not
clear where path computation request from the network (Section is
located in Fig.1. Another example is that it is not clear whether PCE to
Provisioning Manager interface (not Provisioning Manager to Networks interface)
is covered in Section 2.3.2 or not.

2) In Section 3.2.1, 2., Cross Stratum Addressing Mapping is mentioned. It
says, "The ABNO Controller and/or the PCE may need to translate or map
addresses from different address spaces." Maybe I am just missing something but
it is not clear how this sentence is related to "a. The Application Layer knows
Client Network Layer" and "b. Application Layer knows Server Network Layer". (I
thought that a. corresponds to the case for the mapping by ABNO controller and
b. corresponds to the case for the mapping by the PCE. However, this guess is
not correct by reading the draft.)

Nits :
3) In Section 3.5, it would be good to add reference(s) for EON.

4) In Section 3.6.5, applicability of ABNO to PWs are mentioned. Although I
agree PWs falls into multi-layer network, I am not sure whether/how ABNO covers
that case for LDP signaled PWs.

5) In Section 3.7.2, it says "the task of selecting the data center may be left
to the ABNO Controller". In this case, is the information such as server loads
etc. stored in ABNO components? It seems that Fig.1 does not contain such

6) Is Section 3.8 to be included in the final RFC?

7) In Appendix A., as for the VNTM to PCE/ABNO Controller interface, isn't it
necessary to add PCE Notify (in addition to I2RS) to be in line with Section (for completeness)?

Tomonori Takeda