Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10-rtgdir-lc-malis-2019-02-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-02-26
Requested 2019-02-12
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by David Schinazi (diff)
Comments
Prep for Last Call
Review State Completed
Reviewer Andrew Malis
Review review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10-rtgdir-lc-malis-2019-02-18
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4JT3MmfDbgF_UBLu7f8iQDM7o10
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2019-02-18
Review completed: 2019-02-18

Review
review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10-rtgdir-lc-malis-2019-02-18

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-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt
Reviewer: Andy Malis
Review Date: 18 February 2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC)
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

It was very easy to follow the draft. Excellent work by all involved.

Major issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

1. Section 3.1, second paragraph:

Replace:
For P2MP this is an added advantage, where the size of message is much
larger.

With:
For P2MP, where the size of message is much larger, this is an added
advantage.

2. Section 5.1, fifth paragraph:

Replace:
Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate):  is a PCEP

With:
Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): PCInitiate is a PCEP

3. Section 5.2, first paragraph:

Replace:
PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
in open message.

With:
PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY
TLV in the OPEN object.

4. Section 5.2, third paragraph (N Flag): In two places, replace "changes"
with "change".

5. Section 5.3, first paragraph: Expand "LSR" (Label Switching Router) on
first use. It's not on the RFC Editor's list of well-known acronyms.

6. Section 5.3, second paragraph: Expand "PCED" (PCE Discovery TLV) on
first use.

7. Section 6.2, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the
paragraph.

8. Section 6.5, first paragraph: In the second line, replace the comma with
a period and capitalize the following "this".

9. Section 6.5, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the
paragraph.

10. Section 8, second paragraph: Add the word "The" to the start of the
paragraph.

11. Section 11.2, first paragraph. Change "and a registry was created" to
"and the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field subregistry was created"

12. Section 11.3, first paragraph: Change "and a registry was created" to
"and the LSP Object Flag Field subregistry was created"

Regards,
Andy