Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06

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
Authors Quintin Zhao, Dhruv Dhody, Daniel King, Zafar Ali, Ramon Casellas
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


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>


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”)