Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-05-26-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>



Document:                        
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07



Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg



Review Date:                     6 June 2014



IETF LC End Date:             26 May 2014



IETF Telechat Date:        12 June 2014



Summary:                         The document is well written, with some
editorial nits that the authors may want to address before publication.



Major Issues: None



Minor Issues: None



Editorial nits:



Q1-G:                                    In the Introduction section, you
expand PCE (“Path Computation Element (PCE)”). After that, I suggest you don’t
expand it anymore. I think you do it in a couple of places, in section
 1.2 and 3.





Q2-G:                                    Same as Q_G_1, but for PCEP, which I
believe you in addition to the Introduction also expand in section 3.





Q3_1:                                    In section 1, the draft says:



“The ability to compute constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE

                LSPs) for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs in Multiprotocol Label

                Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across

                multiple domains are therefore required.”



                                                Are all these so called
                                                well-known terms (I guess at
                                                least MPLS is), or would it be
                                                useful to add some references
                                                when/if appropriate?





Q4_1_2:                               In section 1.2, the draft says:



                “The experiment is intended to enable research for the Path
                Computation Element (PCE)”



                                                Do you mean to say “to enable
                                                research of the usage of the
                                                PCE”?





Q5_1_2:                               In section 1.2, the draft says:



                “This document is not intended to replace the intra-domain P2MP
                path

                computation approach supported by [RFC6006],”



                                                It is a little unclear to me
                                                what you mean be “supported
                                                by”. Does RFC 6006 defined the
                                                approach, or does RFC 6006 use
                                                an approach defined somewhere
                                                else, or?





Q6-7_4_2:                           In section 7.4.2, s/

The procedure as described in this document/The procedure described in this
document           (remove “as”)





Q7_7:                                    In section 7, s/

has following impact -/ has following impacts:





Q8_7:                                    In section 7, instead of saying
“requirements specified in the previous section”, please point to the actual
section, e.g. “requirements specified in section X of this document”.





Q9_7:                                    In section 7, the text says:



                “The following sections describe the core-tree based procedures
                to

                satisfy the requirements specified in the previous section.”



                                                Would it be good to also
                                                mention the PCEP extensions?
                                                E.g.:



                “The following sections describe the core-tree based
                procedures, including

PCEP extensions, to satisfy the requirements specified in the previous section.”





Q10_7:                                  As section 7 (including the sub
sections) is quite large, I would suggest to have a section called “7.1
General”:



                “7.  P2MP Path Computation Procedures



                7.1. General



A P2MP Path computation can be broken down into two steps of core-

                tree computation and grafting of sub-trees. Breaking the
                procedure

                …”





Q11_7_2:                             In section 7.2, s/ messages format as per
[RFC5440]/ messages format defined in [RFC5440]





Q12_7_4_2:                        In section 7.4.2, s/

The procedure as described in this document/

The procedure described in this document           (remove “as”)







Regards,



Christer