Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-12-09
Requested 2013-11-25
Authors Fatai Zhang, Adrian Farrel
Draft last updated 2013-11-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren Kumari
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11-genart-lc-sparks-2013-11-26
Reviewed rev. 11
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-11-26


    missed copying gen-art

      -------- Original Message --------


Gen-art last call review:


Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:57:45 -0600


Robert Sparks 

<rjsparks at>


pce at


draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints at

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



Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 26 Nov 2013
IETF LC End Date: 9 Dec 2013
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready (but I have a couple of comments for consideration)

Given a quick scan of the list history for this document, I'm surprised 
there's not more discussion about the potential for creating islands of 
non-interoperable equipment, and some recommendation for when to define 
and how to deploy a standard version of a constraint when a common thing 
is found among vendor specific variants of the constraint (are there 
implications if an element include both the standard and vendor specific 

This is probably bigger than this document, and take it for what it's 
worth, but the practice of relisting the definition of <svec-list> when 
you add objects doesn't seem to be working well. For instance, had XRO 
or GC been defined later, you're probably ok with them being used with 
these objects too, right? As it is, I'm having a hard time seeing the 
value in redefining the grammar this way each time you add a new thing. 
It leads to odd artifacts like _this_ document not providing a good 
reference to what XRO and GC are (you have to chase through the 
registry, or look at 5557 or 5521, neither of which are referenced here.