Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09
review-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09-genart-lc-halpern-2015-10-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-11-09
Requested 2015-10-29
Authors Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Ramon Casellas
Draft last updated 2015-10-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Nevil Brownlee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09-genart-lc-halpern-2015-10-29
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2015-10-29

Review
review-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09-genart-lc-halpern-2015-10-29

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence
    Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 29-October-2015
IETF LC End Date: 09-November-2015
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an experimental RFC.

Major issues:


    Given that Exclude Route Objects are not interleaved with include 


Objects, is there a restriction that Area IDs may only be excluded from 


paths within a single AS?




Minor issues:


    It seems a bit odd for an Experimental RFC to use "Standard" in its 


title.  As one possible solution, in parallel with the naming of the 


related TEAS draft, this could be "Domain Subobjects for Path 


Computation Engine Protocol."






    The procedure for updating AS number scope when observing an IP 


address at a PCE processing an IRO seems fragile as described.  Many of 


the real-time mechanisms for this are error prone.  I would recommend 


that a note be added that this construct be avoided in building IROs 


whenever possible.




Nits/editorial comments: