Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10
review-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10-rtgdir-lc-qu-2019-04-01-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2019-04-01 | |
| Requested | 2019-03-15 | |
| Requested by | Deborah Brungard | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-04-01 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Yingzhen Qu
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) |
|
| Comments | Prep for Last Call |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Yingzhen Qu |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10-rtgdir-lc-qu-2019-04-01 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 10 (document currently at 12) | |
| Review result | Has Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2019-04-01 |
Review
review-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10-rtgdir-lc-qu-2019-04-01
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. 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/ Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu Review Date: 1 April 2019 IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2019 Intended Status: Informational Summary: An informational RFC is being requested by this document. This document examines the applicability of PCE to ACTN framework. Comments: This document is clearly written and easy to understand. I have only a few nitty comments that should be considered prior to publication.. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: 1. Page 7, section 3, why is NETCONF not included? 2. page 11. “need PCE as a important function.” Should be “need PCE as an important function.” 3. page 13. The paths from A to C, why is B31-B34 not there? 4. page 14. Section “VN Protection”, “need to applied to” should be “need to be applied to” 5. page 14. “In case PNC generates an abstract topology to the MDSC, the PCInitiate/PCUpd messages from the MDSC to a PNC will contain a path with abstract nodes and links.” Should it be “from the MDSC to a PNC” or “from the MDSC to the PNC”? Thanks, Yingzhen