Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-04-15
Requested 2019-04-01
Authors Fatai Zhang , Quintin Zhao , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , R. Casellas, Daniel King
I-D last updated 2019-04-14
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Mike McBride (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 11)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2019-04-14
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2019-04-14
IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-15
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
1. In section 1.1 last bullet does it mean that you MUST NOT use H-PCEP on the

2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE sends an
open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a P flag =1 and if yes
what should be the action of the originator. I did not see any text about this

Nits/editorial comments:
1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child"
2.  Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 but using
different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording.