Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-08-28
Requested 2019-08-14
Authors Dhruv Dhody, Young Lee, Daniele Ceccarelli, Jongyoon Shin, Daniel King
Draft last updated 2019-08-20
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11-genart-lc-kyzivat-2019-08-20
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 15)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-08-20


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


Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2019-08-20
IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28
IESG Telechat date: ?


This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should 
be fixed before publication.


Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  7

1) NIT: No glossary

Since I am not familiar with the subject domain, when I started reading 
this document I felt I was lost among the acronyms. While you are good 
at defining these at first use, I couldn't keep them all in mind as I 
read. I had to create my own glossary to support me while reading. I 
would really appreciate having a glossary in the document.

2) NIT: Inconsistent terminology

In section 3 two pairs of terms are introduced: (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / 
EP-EC). IIUC in the first pair "E" stands for "PCE" while in the second 
pair "E" seems to stand for "Extended", while "P" stands for PCE. I 
found this very confusing. I think it would be better to allow "E" to 
mean the same thing in both pairs. Perhaps you could use "X" to stand 
for "eXtended". Then there would be clear parallels:

C -> XC
E -> XE

Please consider doing something relieve the confusion.

3) NIT: Badly formed sentence

I can't parse this sentence in section 3.1:

    Procedures as described in [RFC6805] are applied and where the
    ingress C-PCE (Child PCE), triggers a path computation request for
    the LER in the domain where the LSP originates, sends a request to
    the P-PCE.

Can you rephrase it?

4) NIT: Unclear text

In section 3.1 are steps A/B/C/D to be added at the *end*, after step 
11? It would help to be explicit.

In step (C) of section 3.2, can you please be explicit about which node 
is to execute these elements? I think it is PCE5, but I'm not certain.

5) NIT: Unlinked references

Some RFC references (e.g. [RFC8051] and [RFC8231] in section 1.1, and 
[RFC8232] in section 3.1) are not linked in the HTML version. I suggest 
a global search for all such unlinked references in the source.

6) NIT: Bad reference link

In the following from section 3.1:

    Steps 1 to 11 are exactly as described in section 4.6.2 (Hierarchical
    PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure) of [RFC6805], the

the "section 4.6.2" is linked to the non-existent section 4.6.2 of 
*this* document rather than RFC6805.

A similar link to the same spot in section 3.2 is ok.

7) NIT: Outdated references:

IdNits reports outdated references. I trust these will be updated in due