[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 26 August 2019 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93C012013D; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 05:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <156682165261.25516.1887489813169802107@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 05:14:12 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/x0g28tF0smPvyFJevPwErx6dR0k>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:14:13 -0000

Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review result: Ready with Issues

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2019-08-26
IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication, but has minor issues/open
points that should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues / questions:

* Section 3: At the end of season 3, you indicate that this new flag has no
meaning in PCRpt and PCInitiate messages. RFC8231 defines that the SRP Object
MAY be carried in PCErr as well, shouldn't there be such requirements (MUST be
set to 0, MUST be ignored on reception) for PCErr?

* In the following text (Section 4): "The PCE SHOULD NOT
   send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the PCE,
   i.e. if the D Flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C Flag SHOULD
   NOT be set." Why is there a SHOULD NOT instead of MUST NOT? In which
   situation could it be acceptable or useful to request control for a
   delegated LSP?

Nits/editorial comments:

* Terminology should also include a sentence about the reader being familiar
with at least RFC8231.

* Terminology could also include what SRP stand for.

* Section 3. When introducing SRP, it would have been helpful to the reader to
reference section 7.2 of RFC8231.

* Section 3. "PCE sets the C Flag to 1 to indicate that, it wishes" -- remove
","

* Section 3. "MUST be ignored on receipt" -- "MUST be ignored on reception"

* Section 4. When introducing the D flag, it would have been helpful to the
reader to reference section 7.3 of RFC8231.

* Section 4. "Note that, the PCUpd message with C Flag set is received" --
"Note that, if the PCUpd message with C Flag set is received"

(Please keep my address in the To: field if you want to make sure I see any
response to this thread)

Thanks,
Francesca