Early Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-29
review-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-29-secdir-early-smith-2024-01-31-00

1) Section 5 header should capitalize "messages"
2) The introduction says, "It is necessary to use the central control mode
described in [RFC8283]". This reads like a mandatory constraint on implementers
but is listed as an informative reference. If the I-D doesn't actually depend
on RFC8283, but the authors are assuming this context, then the wording could
be adjusted to describe the author's assumptions rather than describe it in
(almost) normative style. Alternatively, it is a normative requirement that
shouldn't exist in the introduction and the reference should move to the
normative list. 3) Figure 16 - It isn't clear if TBD1 and TBD2 are gaps in the
I-D that the WG has yet to complete vs. extension / extensibility properties
that a subsequent I-D might define. 4) Section 10 "The communication of PCE and
PCC described in this document should also follow the same procedures, treat
the three newly defined objects (BPI, EPR, PPA) associated with the same
symbolic path name as the attribute of the same path in the LSP-DB (LSP State
Database)." The "should" in this sentence reads as though it is normative.
Consider making it upper case. The sentence is potentially easily misread as it
isn't clear which procedures is meant by "...the same procedures,...".