Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-02-28
Requested 2017-02-14
Authors Edward Crabbe, Ina Minei, Jan Medved, Robert Varga
Draft last updated 2017-02-16
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18-genart-lc-halpern-2017-02-16
Reviewed rev. 18 (document currently at 21)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-02-16


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


Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-02-16
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-28
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16


Major issues:

Minor issues:
   At the end of section 5.4, the text talks about a PCE accepting status updates even if the  stateful capability has not been negotiated.  Which is fine.  But as written, the text seems to say that doing so means that the PCE will be able to "build and maintain an up to date view of the state of the PCC's LSPs".  However, if the capability has not been negotiated, I do not see how the PCE can count on getting full and timely state reports.  Trying to infer why a PCC is sending such a report in the absence of the agreement seems problematic.

    This comment may be a misunderstanding or mis-expectation on my part.  I would have expected one of the ways o using an active PCE is to have the PCE decide (under suitable circumstances) that an LSP is needed between two PCCs.  As far as I can tell, the text in section 5.8.2 and 5.8.3 prohibits that.  A PCE is only allowed to send an LSP Update Request (in a PCUpd message) for an LSP that has been delegated to it.  At that point I thought that a PCC could delegate a block of unsetup LSPs to the PCE.  But then looking at 5.8.2, the text states that for each delegation, the PCC must request an initial path.  That seems to prohibit delegating a block of LSPs for future updates.  Is the intention to prohibit the driving of LSP creation from the PCE?

    I have looked but I can not find the text explaining the significance and use of the Symbolic path name.  It is mandated by the draft.  There seems to be an implicit assumption taht it is needed by the PCE.  If the explanation of how or why it is needed is not present, it should be.

Nits/editorial comments: 
    Should the text on the S bit in section 7.3 (the LSP Object definition) note that it should be set to 0 on all messages sent by the PCE?  Should that also be stated for the R bit?  And the O bits?

  Section 9.2 seems very odd.  It states that the IETF "SHOULD" do some additional work.  I understand why teh work is needed.  But this does not seem to match the RFC 2119 meaning of SHOULD as it does not apply to eitehr the implementor or the implementation.