Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-10-31
Requested 2022-08-17
Requested by John Scudder
Authors Andrew Stone , Mustapha Aissaoui , Samuel Sidor , Siva Sivabalan
I-D last updated 2022-11-16
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-11-16

I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of
this draft. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please

Document: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07
Reviewer: Donald Eastlake 3rd
Review Date: 16 November 2022
Intended Status: Standards Track

Has Nits.

This is a straightforward document specifying an "Enforcement" bit in
the PCEP LSP Attributes Object. This bit operates in conjunction with
the previously specified L (Local Protection Desired) bit to clarify
the extent to which local protection is required / desired / undesired
/ prohibited in the path being determined. Appropriate backwards
compatibility considerations are included.

Major Issues:
No Major issues.

Minor Issues:
No Minor technical issues but has nits.


Section 2: Need to be updated as per RFC 8174.

Section 5, Page 6: Drafts should be written as definite
specifications, not as proposals. It will not be useful to say this
has an "early allocation" when this is published as an RFC.
   A new flag is
   proposed in this document in the LSP Attributes Object which extends
   the L flag to identify the protection enforcement.

   Bit 6 has been early allocated by IANA as the Protection Enforcement flag.
    A Protection Enforcement flag "E" is specified below, extending the L flag.
    RFC Editor Note: The text below assumes the E bit remains the
early allocation value 6. Please adjust if this changes and remove
this note before publication.

Trivia / Editorial Suggestions:

Section 1, Page 3: re "so therefore" I suggest you pick one of these
two words and drop the other.
Add comma: "router processing the SID such as" -> "router processing
the SID, such as"

Section 3: Suggest adding entries for the following: LSPA

Section 4.1, Page 4, 2nd line: "PCEP is with the" -> "PCEP is the"

Section 4.2, Page 5, 1st paragraph:
"The boolean bit flag" -> "The boolean bit L flag"
"The selection for" -> "Selecting"

Section 4.2, Page 5, 2nd paragraph:
"if there is anywhere along the path that traffic will be fast
re-routed at the point of failure" -> "if there is a failure anywhere
along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at that point"

Section 4.2, Page 5, 3rd paragraph:
"rather local failures to cause" -> "rather local failures cause"
"(ex: insufficient bandwidth)" -> "(e.g., insufficient bandwidth)"
"resulting for the LSP to be torn down" -> "resulting in the LSP being
torn down"

Section 4.2, Page 6: "to instruct the PCE a preference" -> "to give
the PCE a preference"

Section 5, Page 7: "criteria however the" -> "criteria; however, the"
"should interpret and behave when" -> "should behave when"

Section 5, Page 8: (twice) "It is RECOMMENDED for a PCE to assume" ->
"It is RECOMMENDED that a PCE assume"
"ignore the E flag thus it" -> "ignore the E flag. Thus, it"

Section 8: Since there is only one subsection of Section 8, the
"Section 8.1" subheading should be deleted.
When published, this will no longer be an "I-D" so the Reference
should be changed from "I-D" to "[this document]".

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA,