Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2014-05-28-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-05-26 | |
Requested | 2014-05-13 | |
Authors | Quintin Zhao , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Zafar Ali , Ramon Casellas | |
I-D last updated | 2014-05-28 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-05-28 |
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2014-05-28-00
I have performed an Operations Directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06 Sorry for this arriving late.. I do not claim expertise on the specific topic this I-D covers, so treat the "substantial comments" according to that. ** General: I found the document sound and well written. Although the writing style is referencing related documentation as much as possible without repeating any text from them makes the document short, it also makes reading the document somewhat a taunting task unless the reader can memorize all the related & referenced RFCs. I am not asking anything on this regard, just pointing it out. ** Editorials: Abstract: o I would expand all non-obvious acronyms and not use acronyms at all unless the acronym in already non-expandable ( http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt ) o Section 7.2 bullet 4 s/step3/step 3 o Section 7.2. Acronym S2L has two different expansions "Source-to-Leaf" and "Source to Leaf BN". Would be less confusing to use one. o Section 7.2. s/, Etc./, etc. o Section 7.2: Is the "\" in the "\prod" intentional? ** Substantials: o Section 7.4.1. A small nit.. I somehow would like to see this document actually showing the value of the new IANA allocated C-bit in the RP Object Flag Field. Now there is going to only be a reference to the IANA registry. o Section 7.4.2. The I-D references to H-PCE for the dynamic discovery of the domain-tree. According to the RFC6805 one valid solution for H-PCE PCE child-parent discovery is also static configuration.. So I might reconsider the word "dynamically" in this section. ** Operationals: o I actually found it surprising that the document already had put thought on the operational and management aspects. Well done ;) o I would add a note into Section 9 again emphasising the fact that preconfiguring and maintaining domain-trees might be a considerable administration effort. - JOuni