Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-01-05
Requested 2017-12-19
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Siva Sivabalan, Jeff Tantsura, Ina Minei, Robert Varga, Jonathan Hardwick
Draft last updated 2018-01-10
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Roni Even (diff)
Prep for Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2018-01-10
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2018-01-10



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-setup-type-07

Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli

Review Date: 2018-01-10

IETF LC End Date: date-if-known

Intended Status: Standards Track


I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.


The draft is a bit confusing on some aspects. I had to read it again a couple of times to understand that 2 TLVs are defined (probably my fault). If you could make it clearer in the intro that 2 TLVs are defined each of which with a precise scope, that would make things easier.

Also the list of the PSTs is a bit confusing. Since each PST is a byte field why don’t you adopt and encoding like the one used in RFC7138 section 4.1.1. for the muxing stages? You could encode the PST values like the Stage#1…Stage# below.

   0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   |        Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   |             Length            |
   |  Signal Type  | Num of stages |T|S| TSG | Res |    Priority   |
   |    Stage#1    |      ...      |   Stage#N     |    Padding    |
   |  Unreserved ODUj at Prio 0    |             .....             |
   |  Unreserved ODUj at Prio 7    |     Unreserved Padding        |

                   Figure 3: Bandwidth Sub-TLV -- Type 1

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

  *   Section 3: definition of the Length field is missing. Further reading the document I found it later in section 3. Ordering the definitions of the fields accordingly with the order they appear in the TLV improves the readability.
  *   Section 3: why is the PST length needed? Why is not enough to use the Length field of the PSTCapability TLV?
  *   Section 3: “This document defines the following PST value:

          o  PST = 0: Path is setup using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol.” …please see general comment above.


  *   Abstract: I’d suggest substituting “Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths)” with Traffic Engineering (TE) paths.
  *   Requirement language: usually this section is a subsection in the body of the draft, not in the abstract. It could be put as 1.1?
  *   Section1: “by sending the ERO and characteristics of the LSP”…shouldn’t a “THE” be used between “and” and “characteristics”?