Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-05-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-05-26
Requested 2014-05-15
Draft last updated 2014-05-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-05-26
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-05-26

Review
review-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-05-26






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




 




Document:                         draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07




 




Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg




 




Review Date:                     6 June 2014




 




IETF LC End Date:             26 May 2014




 




IETF Telechat Date:        12 June 2014




 




Summary:                         The document is well written, with some editorial nits that the authors may want to address before publication.




 




Major Issues: None




 




Minor Issues: None




 




Editorial nits: 




 




Q1-G:                                    In the Introduction section, you expand PCE (“Path Computation Element (PCE)”). After that, I suggest you don’t expand it anymore. I think you do it in a couple of places, in section
 1.2 and 3.




 




 




Q2-G:                                    Same as Q_G_1, but for PCEP, which I believe you in addition to the Introduction also expand in section 3.




 




 




Q3_1:                                    In section 1, the draft says:




 




“The ability to compute constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE




                LSPs) for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs in Multiprotocol Label




                Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across




                multiple domains are therefore required.”




 




                                                Are all these so called well-known terms (I guess at least MPLS is), or would it be useful to add some references when/if appropriate?




 




 




Q4_1_2:                               In section 1.2, the draft says:




 




                “The experiment is intended to enable research for the Path Computation Element (PCE)”




 




                                                Do you mean to say “to enable research of the usage of the PCE”?




 




 




Q5_1_2:                               In section 1.2, the draft says:




 




                “This document is not intended to replace the intra-domain P2MP path




                computation approach supported by [RFC6006],”




 




                                                It is a little unclear to me what you mean be “supported by”. Does RFC 6006 defined the approach, or does RFC 6006 use an approach defined somewhere else, or?




 




 




Q6-7_4_2:                           In section 7.4.2, s/

The procedure as described in this document/The procedure described in this document           (remove “as”)




 




 




Q7_7:                                    In section 7, s/




has following impact -/ has following impacts:




 




 




Q8_7:                                    In section 7, instead of saying “requirements specified in the previous section”, please point to the actual section, e.g. “requirements specified in section X of this document”.




 




 




Q9_7:                                    In section 7, the text says:




 




                “The following sections describe the core-tree based procedures to




                satisfy the requirements specified in the previous section.”




 




                                                Would it be good to also mention the PCEP extensions? E.g.:




 




                “The following sections describe the core-tree based procedures, including




PCEP extensions, to satisfy the requirements specified in the previous section.”




 




 




Q10_7:                                  As section 7 (including the sub sections) is quite large, I would suggest to have a section called “7.1 General”:




 




                “7.  P2MP Path Computation Procedures




 




                7.1. General




 




A P2MP Path computation can be broken down into two steps of core-




                tree computation and grafting of sub-trees. Breaking the procedure




                …”




 




 




Q11_7_2:                             In section 7.2, s/ messages format as per [RFC5440]/ messages format defined in [RFC5440]




 




 




Q12_7_4_2:                        In section 7.4.2, s/




The procedure as described in this document/




The procedure described in this document           (remove “as”)




 




 




 




Regards,




 




Christer