Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-13
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-13-opsdir-lc-chown-2019-05-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-03-20
Requested 2019-03-06
Authors Udayasree Palle , Dhruv Dhody , Yosuke Tanaka , Vishnu Pavan Beeram
I-D last updated 2019-05-08
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Andrew G. Malis (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by David Schinazi (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Tim Chown
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/AtCEscd5qoEfyaQQ0jVYVwx6MEQ
Reviewed revision 13
Result Ready
Completed 2019-05-08
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-13-opsdir-lc-chown-2019-05-08-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document defines the extensions required for the Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) required for the deployment of stateful PCEs to support
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), detailing the
message and object formats used.

It is well-written with a good structure.  While not a subject matter expert, I
found the document to flow very well, and the use of examples is appreciated. 
Including a Manageability section in addition to the usual Security section is
also helpful.