Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07
review-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07-rtgdir-lc-robles-2019-07-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-07-09
Requested 2019-06-21
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Hariharan Ananthakrishnan , Siva Sivabalan , Colby Barth , Ina Minei , Mahendra Singh Negi
I-D last updated 2019-07-09
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Ines Robles (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Comments
Prep for IETF Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07-rtgdir-lc-robles-2019-07-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/tIHkfRQAEB5-IyYpN5BgiHtyveI
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-07-09
review-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07-rtgdir-lc-robles-2019-07-09-00
Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07.txt
Reviewer: Ines Robes
Review Date: 09-07-2019
IETF LC End Date: --
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written.

This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs
for the purpose of setting up path protection.

I have some minor questions.

Major Issues: No major issues found.

Minor Issues: No minor issues found.

Nits: from the tool ->   Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==),
1 comment (--).

Comments/Questions:

1- about "..associate one working LSP with one or more protection LSPs..." -->
Is there a limit of numbers of protection LSPs to be associated with one
working LSP?

2- About Table 1: PPAG TLV, the name of the flag "S - STANDBY" should be
"Secondary" (S) as per Figure 1?

Thank you for this document,

Ines.