Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10
review-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10-genart-lc-even-2019-04-14-00
| 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 |
review-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10-genart-lc-even-2019-04-14-00
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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 Summary: 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 internet? 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 case. Nits/editorial comments: 1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child" 2. Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 1.3.2.2 but using different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording.