Early Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23
review-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23-rtgdir-early-robles-2023-07-21-00

Review: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23
Reviewer: Ines Robles

Summary:

The document defines the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR) based application in
Native IP network.

No major issues found.

Minor issues found as follows:

Section 3: Terminology:

* "The following terms are defined in this document" --> The following
terminology is used in this document? Since the mentioned terms are not defined
in the document, for example, the case of CCDR

* Also, The document claims that it defines QoS, but it is not mentioned in the
text.

Section 4.1: TBD1: Path is a Native IP path --> TBD1: Path is a Native IP TE
path ? (To be aligned with IANA section description)

Section 6: Error-value=TBD18, BPI/PPR --> Error-value=TBD18, BPI/PPA ?

Section 6.1: "... Peer IP address)" closed parenthesis, but it is not open.

Figure 1: the arrow from PCE to R3 is bidirectional, the arrow from PCE to R1
and R7 are unidirectional, is this correct?

Section 6.2: "... explicit routes operate similar to static routes..." --> in
which aspects is similar? in which aspects are dissimilar?

"...network management protocols..." --> it would be nice to add some examples
of network management protocols between brackets.

Figure 2: The same as Fig. 1. The arrow from PCE to R1 is unidirectional, R2,
R4 are bidirectional, is this correct?

Section 9: "..cares only..." --> ...focuses only on...?

Section 10: "...light weight BGP session setup..": It would be nice to add a
reference to it.

Section 12: Should the security considerations mention RFC9050?

Section 13.4: errors:: --> errors:

Question: Should this document add a section for Manageability Considerations,
like in RFC9050?

Thanks for this document,
Ines.