Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

Thanks for a review. See inline...


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence
>     Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 29-October-2015
> IETF LC End Date: 09-November-2015
> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an experimental RFC.
>
> Major issues:
>     Given that Exclude Route Objects are not interleaved with include
> Objects, is there a restriction that Area IDs may only be excluded from
> paths within a single AS?
>

[Dhruv]: I guess this would depend on the PCE behavior during inter-AS path
computation i.e. PCE may feel the area id subobject is irrelevent and
strips from the XRO before sending the request to another PCE
​ or it might keep it intact. ​


This would be in s
​pi​
rit of RFC 4874 where
​-


​      ​
The number of subobjects to be avoided, specified in the
   signaled XRO, may be constant throughout the whole path setup, or the
   subobjects to be avoided may be removed from the XRO as they become
   irrelevant in the subsequent hops of the path setup.

We can always
​use ​
EXRS in IRO specify the intentions much more clearly.

If you agree, we can work on some text to add.


>
> Minor issues:
>     It seems a bit odd for an Experimental RFC to use "Standard" in its
> title.  As one possible solution, in parallel with the naming of the
> related TEAS draft, this could be "Domain Subobjects for Path Computation
> Engine Protocol."
>

[Dhruv]: The draft was initially on standard track :)
I can live with the name change.


>
>     The procedure for updating AS number scope when observing an IP
> address at a PCE processing an IRO seems fragile as described.  Many of the
> real-time mechanisms for this are error prone.  I would recommend that a
> note be added that this construct be avoided in building IROs whenever
> possible.
>
​[Dhruv]: Could you help frame this text, here is the initial version.

Note that it is advised that PCC should use AS are Area subobject while
building the domain-sequence in IRO and avoid using other mechanism to
change the "current AS" and "current Area" as described above.

Regards,
Dhruv


>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>