Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-07-22
Requested 2019-07-03
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Aswatnarayan Raghuram , Al Goddard , Jay Karthik , Siva Sivabalan , Mahendra Singh Negi
I-D last updated 2019-07-15
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Prep for IETF Last Call.
Assignment Reviewer Tomonori Takeda
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2019-07-15

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

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-lsp-control-request-06.txt
  Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
  Review Date: July 16th, 2019
  IETF LC End Date: Not known
  Intended Status: Standards Track

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

This document specifies a PCEP extension by which a PCE can request control of
LSP(s) from PCC(s) over the stateful PCEP sessions. The procotol extension is
simple, and its operation is well documented, including operation with PCCs
that do not support the protocol extension specified in this document.

Major Issues:

Minor Issues:

1) In Section 2, it states terminologies. Since these terminologies are already
defined in other documents, I would suggest to add references.

2) In Section 8.1, it says:
"Further, the operator MAY be to be allowed "

It should be:
"Further, the operator MAY be allowed "

Tomonori Takeda