Subject: Re: [Pce] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06.txt

From: Mahendra Singh Negi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 08:21:48 +0000

Hi Tomonori,

Many thanks for your review. New version addresses the comments:

New Version:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-07

Diff with previous version:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-07

Regards,
Mahendra

-----Original Message-----
From: Tomonori Takeda <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 9:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06.txt

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_rtg_trac_wiki_RtgDir&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=EY53_4FU97aSiZY1AQpXTblgh2QhRlBT4hCaV9T8nEk&s=i4tooGNHNlmKvITJy6x1OpuH-NBr6L-eLQzcPF6KWBg&e=

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

  Document: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06.txt
  Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
  Review Date: July 16th, 2019
  IETF LC End Date: Not known
  Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: 
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This document specifies a PCEP extension by which a PCE can request control of LSP(s) from PCC(s) over the stateful PCEP sessions.
The procotol extension is simple, and its operation is well documented, including operation with PCCs that do not support the protocol extension specified in this document.

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
None

Nits:
1) In Section 2, it states terminologies. Since these terminologies are already defined in other documents, I would suggest to add references.

2) In Section 8.1, it says:
"Further, the operator MAY be to be allowed "

It should be:
"Further, the operator MAY be allowed "

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda