Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09
review-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09-rtgdir-lc-andersson-2020-08-07-00

Forward Loa's mail to RTG-DIR list.

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
发送时间: 2020年8月7日 14:28
收件人: rtg-ads@ietf.org; "review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-.all"@ietf.org;
TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org;
Yemin (Amy) <amy.yemin@huawei.com>; LucAndré Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>
主题: teas

RtgDir review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09

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
​http://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-teas-pce-native-ip-09
Reviewer: Loa Andersson
Review Date: 2020-07-08
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D - Experimental (see issues list).

Summary:

I'm departing from the normal list, since if this would have been a standard
tracks document there would have been serious issues.

However, the document describes a TE experiment in a native IP network.
I think is so interesting that I wouldn't object if the issues I point are not
(fully) resolved. Actually I would very much like to see published and followed
up by a document that reports the results from the experiment.

I have the following issues with the document.

It is a framework that gives the framework for an experiment. Its intended
status is Experimental. While agree that the accompanying specification should
be Experimental I think that in accordance with earlier document a framework
should be Informational.

The document describes the experiment in some detail, I would like to see more,
especially evaluation criteria and bench marking. To have an overview of the
test bed would be interesting.

I would recommend that someone take a look at the document from a language
point of view. When I read I find myself correcting and clarifying the English
(this is probably not a good idea, since my English is probably worse than the
current authors).

There are loads of not expanded abbreviations, authors should go through the
document and compare to:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt to decide what needs
to be expanded or not.

I would also want to suggest that someone with experience of "Native IP
networks". both specification and operation should look at the document. From
the early days of MPLS I remember that one motivation to create a strong tunnel
technology was that the Route Reflectors no longer scaled.

I normally review document based on a word document, I have included the
word-file, and it contains about everything form major issues to nits.

/Loa

--

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64