Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07-genart-telechat-holmberg-2014-06-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-06-10 | |
Requested | 2014-06-05 | |
Authors | Quintin Zhao , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Zafar Ali , Ramon Casellas | |
I-D last updated | 2014-06-06 | |
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 | Christer Holmberg |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2014-06-06 |
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07-genart-telechat-holmberg-2014-06-06-00
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