Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09-genart-lc-kyzivat-2024-10-02-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2024-10-03 | |
Requested | 2024-09-19 | |
Authors | Cheng Li , Haomian Zheng , Stephane Litkowski | |
I-D last updated | 2024-10-02 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -09
by Ron Bonica
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Carl Wallace (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tianran Zhou Genart Last Call review of -09 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Paul Kyzivat |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/RHoATzfLTtliZhSJ0t23f6PyCNE | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2024-10-02 |
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09-genart-lc-kyzivat-2024-10-02-00
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-stateful-pce-optional-09 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2024-10-01 IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-03 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. (Arguably the first nit is a minor issue. I decided it didn't warrant raising the severity of the review to "has issues".) NITS: 4 1) NIT/MINOR ISSUE: Clarity of logic In sections 3.*, the message handling rules have complex nested logic regarding the handling of the P, I, and R flags across multiple messages. As written these have the potential to be misunderstood. I suggest it could be helpful to provide some diagrams to summarize this logic. For instance, state diagrams or tables. 2) NIT: Ignoring things Section 3.3.3 says: "The I flag has no meaning in the PCinitiate message [RFC8281] and is ignored." Ignoring things often proves to turn out badly. Also, this statement is non-normative. I suggest you at least say senders MUST clear this flag, while receivers SHOULD/MUST ignore it. 3) NIT: Language usage There are minor issues of language usage throughout the document. For instance: use of "is" vs. "are", and singular vs. plural nouns. I started to enumerate these but decided that a long list of these would not be helpful. These don't impact readability, and I trust they will eventually be corrected by the editor. 4) NIT: Typo In section 3.1: s/To safely use this future/To safely use this feature/