Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-13
review-ietf-pce-association-policy-13-rtgdir-lc-leymann-2020-12-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-association-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-12-09
Requested 2020-10-13
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Stephane Litkowski , Siva Sivabalan , Jeff Tantsura , Jonathan Hardwick , Cheng Li
I-D last updated 2020-12-07
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Comments
Prep for Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Nicolai Leymann
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-association-policy by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/cl6-N-9tEo4euJwXYLYTi36vRB0
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 16)
Result Has nits
Completed 2020-12-07
review-ietf-pce-association-policy-13-rtgdir-lc-leymann-2020-12-07-00
Hello,

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-ietf-pce-association-policy-13.txt
Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann
Review Date: 12/02/2020
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

  *   This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
  should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
The draft describes a mechanism for associating policies to a group of LSPs. 
This is done by via a small extension to PCEP.  The draft is in good shape and
describes the extensions in detail. It's written in a clear language and there
is good support for the draft. One implementation is mentioned in the document
ensuring that there are real deployments available.

Major Issues:

  *   "No major issues found."
Minor Issues:

  *   "No minor issues found."
Nits:

  *   The name in the head line of each page could be more descriptive:
  "Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY October 2020"
E.g. instead of "ASSOC-POLICY" use "PCEP extension for associating Policies" or
something similar.
  *   Error values for "TBD3" and "TBD4" are not defined.
  *   Number of authors should be checked (currently six authors are listed,
  see RFC7322).

Regards

Nic