Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19
review-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19-rtgdir-early-hares-2022-06-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-06-30
Requested 2022-06-16
Requested by Dhruv Dhody
Authors Young Lee , Haomian Zheng , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Victor Lopez , Zafar Ali
I-D last updated 2022-06-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -21 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -21 by Ivaylo Petrov (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -22 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -19 by Susan Hares (diff)
Comments
Please assign a reviewer with expertise in GMPLS if possible.
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/QFB7epcxzibtH4_Lgvu_ZssErN4
Reviewed revision 19 (document currently at 23)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-06-22
review-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19-rtgdir-early-hares-2022-06-22-00
Reviewer: Susan Hares 
Status: Has nits 

Technical nits: 
1. page 6, section 6.2.2 last paragraph in section. 

 line/Note that this XRO Sub-object could also be used by non-GMPLS LSPs./
 
 Please either describe its intended use in non-GMPLS LSPs or indicate the 
 description of the use is out of scope for this document.  

2.  Section 10.2 

I realize you indicate that draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang can be expanded
to cover the features in this document.  

The IESG wants to know that whether:  
  a) the expansion underway (if so, in what draft), 
  b) the expansion is part of WG planned work but not yet started, 
  c) not useful. 

I think you are stating #b.  Please work with Dhruv to gain the 
appropriate clarity for the IESG.  One question that yang model 
raises is when to use the Yang model and when to use PCEP.    

Editorial Nits: 

1. page: 5, section 3 

Old/ The PCE-Initiated LSP would follow the
   principle specified in [RFC8281], and GMPLS-specific extensions are
   also included in this document./
New/ The PCE-Initiated LSP follow the
   principles specified in [RFC8281] and the GMPLS-specific extensions are
   also included in this document./

2. page 6, section 5.1, paragraph 1, last sentence

Old/New bits, LSP-
   REPORT-CAPABILITY(TBDa), LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY (TBD1), and LSP-
   INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY (TBD2), are introduced in the GMPLS-   
   CAPABILITY TLV as flags to indicate the capability for LSP report,
   update and initiation in GMPLS networks./
New:/ The following bits are introduced by this document in the 
 GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV as flags to indicate the capability for LSP report,
   update and initiation in GMPLS networks: LSP-REPORT-CAPABILITY(TBDa), 
   LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY (TBD1), and LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY (TBD2)./ 
   
3. page 10, section 6.2.2 

Old/X bit is defined in [RFC5521]/ 
New/X bit is defined in [RFC5521 in section 2.1.1/ 

4. page 11 section 7 paragraph 1 

 Old/In this document the following error handling procedures are
   introduced. All the error handling specified in section 3 of
   [RFC8779] is applicable and MUST be supported for stateful PCE in
   GMPLS networks./
 New /This section add the additional error handling procedures 
  to the error handling specified in section 3 of [RFC8779]. 
  Please note that all error handling specified in section 3 of
   [RFC8779] is applicable and MUST be supported for stateful PCE in
   GMPLS networks./
   
5. General comment on text for section 7.1  

	Consider reviewing the text to see if a compression of the 
	text will make it more readable.  
	
	It is correct, but difficult to follow. 
	
6. Section 10, p.age 16 introductory paragraph. 
    Old/ In this document the management
   considerations for stateful PCEP extension in GMPLS are described./
   New/ This section describes the management considerations for 
   stateful PCEP extensions in GMPLS./ 
   
7. Section 11, paragraph 2. 

Old/  Additional security issues incurred due
   to the new extensions in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] and possible
   solutions are needed to support for the new stateful PCE
   capabilities./
   
New/Security issues caused by the extension in [RFC8231]
and RFC8281] are not altered by the additions in this draft./