Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type
Requested rev. no specific revision
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-03-06
Requested 2018-02-20
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Shawn Emery
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Roni Even
Review State Completed
Reviewer Dan Romascanu
Review review-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2018-02-28
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 08
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2018-02-28
Review completed: 2018-02-28


I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate reviews a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the OPS ADs. Please treat with these comments as with all other IETF LC comments. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

This document is an extension of PCEP to allow for other LSP setup methods than RSVP-TE to be used. For this purpose it defines two new TLVs and details their operation. 

This is an extension of an existing protocol. An RFC 5706 review applies. 

While the document seems to be focused to developers and implementers of PCEP, it is not clear what is the impact from an operational point of view and there are no considerations related to manageability. Maybe these are detailed in other documents - in this case a reference would be useful. 

Here are a few issues. For a complete list of questions, see Annex A in RFC 5706. 

1. Why were these extensions needed? Do they improve efficiency? Are there classes of devices that do not support RSVP-TE and need the new methods? 

2. How are the new TLVs going to be deployed and managed? Does an operator have the option of selecting one LSP setup method or the other? How and what are the criteria of selections? 

3. There is no discussion about initial setup and configuration. Are there any initial configuration parameters? If yes, how are they set up? 

4. Are there any backwards compatibility and migration path issues operators should be aware about? 

5. What is the expected impact on network operation? 

6. How is correct operation visible to the operators? Are there any fault conditions that need to be reported to operators? 

7. Are there any existing management interfaces (e.g. YANG models) that need to be defined or extended?