Subject: [Pce] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-08

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:55:22 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

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

Document: draft-ietf-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-08
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: March 13, 2009
IETF LC End Date: March 13, 2009

Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

Comments:
This is a draft explaining how to extend Path Computation
Elements to perform global path optimization.  It's strictly
a communication protocol draft; the actual algorithm and
techniques used to perform the path optimization are independent
of the communication to request the optimization and receive
the results.

I am concerned about Section 6.2's recommendation for MIB
extension work.  Is the work to extend the MIB underway?  How
important is that MIB extension to manageability (hence
usability in practice) of this protocol?

The following items are all minor, but should be dealt with:

p.5, last paragraph, 3rd line:
	"wheres this ID" --> "whereas this ID"

p.6, 3rd line of PCECP definition:
	"requests a PCC" --> "requests from a PCC"

p.8, 1st new paragraph, 4th line
	"in which to compute" --> "that computes"

The above items suggest that a careful proofreading of the entire
draft would be a good idea.

Section 5.3 defines two new bits in the RP object.  The
bit numbers should be included in this section in addition to
including them in the IANA Considerations section.

Section 5.5: Please explain what the "Optional TLV(s)" are
in Figure 3.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:39:33 -0000

Thanks David!

> usability in practice) of this protocol?

No, the work on MIB extensions has not been started.
It is not uncommon for MIB work to lag behind the protocol work.
I don't think any of the MIB work is critical to the usability of this 
protocol.

The MIB work is desirable because:
- the IESG asks for it
- it helps to develop the maturity of the protocol

> The following items are all minor, but should be dealt with:

Yes.

> "in which to compute" --> "that computes"

Its on page 9.

> including them in the IANA Considerations section.

Yeah. Might be helpful.

> Section 5.5: Please explain what the "Optional TLV(s)" are

This is a good point...
Authors: I presume you have put this here for extensibility, but have 
defined no TLVs at this stage.
You need to:
- Note that no TLVs are defined in this document. Use some
  text like that in Section 7.3 of RFC 5440
- State that the TLV format and processing is consistent with
   Section 7.1 of RFC 5440
- State that any TLVs will be allocated from the "PCEP TLV
   Type Indicators" registry

I think that means you need to do a quick update, please.

Thanks,
Adrian