Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03
review-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03-genart-lc-even-2017-08-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-24
Requested 2017-08-10
Authors Quintin Zhao , Dhruv Dhody , Ramanjaneya Reddy Palleti , Daniel King
I-D last updated 2017-08-13
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -03 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Fred Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-08-13
review-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03-genart-lc-even-2017-08-13-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-08-13
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-24
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31

Summary: The document is ready for publication as standard track RFC

I read all the document and also did a compare with RFC6006 to look at the
changes.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In section 4.2 I am not sure why is this sentence there, is it for the
current yang document or for a future one. Why have it at all?-"The PCEP YANG
module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to also include the P2MP
related parameters."