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

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions
Requested rev. 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 de Dios, R. Casellas, Daniel King
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10-genart-lc-even-2019-04-14
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Review result Almost Ready
Review 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 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 but using different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording.