Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-27
Requested 2014-10-16
Draft last updated 2014-10-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14-genart-lc-sparks-2014-10-17
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 15)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-10-17


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 17-Oct-2014
IETF LC End Date: 27-Oct-2014
IESG Telechat date: not currently scheduled for any telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC but with nits 
that should be considered before publication

Nits/editorial comments:

There are 6 authors listed - please double-check the guidance in section 
4.1.1 of RFC7322.
If retaining all the authors still makes sense, please help Adrian by 
providing an argument
that he can pass to the RFC Editor.

The shepherd writeup indicates a solution ID is ready. I didn't check to 
see how the requirements
listed here were reflected there. Would it make sense to provide a 
reference? (While I see no harm
in publishing the document, it's not clear how doing so will be helpful 
if the requirements were
uncontentious as the writeup implies. There are few enough of them that 
adding a short list in
the mechanism document might be more effective.)

Items 2 and 3 in section 3.4 are confusing as currently written. 2 seems 
to be talking
about the case that the current path is still optimal. Is 3 trying to 
talk about the case
where there is no path, not even the current path, that will work? If so 
the "(i.e., other
than the current path)" in 3 doesn't make sense.

Should you have captured a requirement that any mechanism implementing these
requirements be extensible to allow for cases like polarization based 
when they eventually come along?

Please consider reordering the sentences in section 3.5 - the last 
sentence seems
to be talking about the first paragraph?

You say "mechanisms defined in this document" several times in section 
4, but this
document defines no mechanisms.