Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 11)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)|
|Requested by||Deborah Brungard|
|Draft last updated||2019-06-18|
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Jonathan Hardwick
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Daniel Franke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Erik Kline (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by David Black (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by David Black
Prep for Last Call.
|Reviewed rev.||09 (document currently at 11)|
|Review result||Has Nits|
Hi there I have reviewed this draft for the routing directorate as part of preparing it for IETF last call and IESG review. I was familiar with this document from the time that I chaired the PCE working group, but this was the first time I read it all the way through and paid attention to all details. I found it easy to read and understand. I think it is basically ready to go with a few small clarifications and nits, below. Cheers Jon Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 Reviewer: Jon Hardwick Review Date: 18 June 2019 IETF LC End Date: LC not started yet Intended Status: Standards Track Comments Section 3 is somewhat redundant IMO. 4.1 you should ideally provide a reference for how to do MBB signalling. 4.3 "Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed due to signaling churn, it can notify the PCE to temporarily suspend new LSP setup requests." I think this is covered by 5.7 as well as the PCE case, but you only refer to 5.7 for the latter. Please point to 5.7 for both cases. 5.1 Not a big deal, but I wonder if there is any practical reason to differentiate the final two bullets. 5.6 Why are AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES required (MUST) in the LSPA object of a PCRpt? If the LSP is PCE-initiated, then the PCE already knows what attributes were specified. If the LSP is PCC-Initiated, then the attributes are the PCC's business - the PCE can't change them (per 5.5) and I don't think the PCE even needs to know what they are. 7.2 Misuses RFC 2119 language to request an action from a working group. In other documents (when there is not already a draft in progress to do it) we have reworded this as "the YANG / MIB could be updated" etc. Nits 5: "Extensions to the PCEP" would sound better as "PCEP Extensions" 7: In RFC 6123 it says "The Manageability Considerations section SHOULD be placed immediately before the Security Considerations section in any Internet-Draft." - but here, it comes after.