Re: [Pce] Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-08

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your shepherd/LC review of this draft. Here's our comment (inline under YL>>). 
Diff file is also provided for your verifications of all the changes between v.8 and v.9.

Let us know if this would make you satisfied. 

Thanks & Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:08 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-08

Hi,

I'm the document shepherd for this draft and I have done my review to coincide with the working group last call in the hope that we can streamline the process a bit.

This document is very well written and clear. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to get it to this level.  I have only a few nitty comments that should be addressed along with any other last call comments that you receive.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

Title

I think this should be

  Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the
        Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)

YL>> Agreed.
---

1.2

   [RFC8453] describes the high-level ACTN requirements and the
   architecture model for ACTN including the following entities:
   Customer Network Controller(CNC), Multi-domain Service
   Coordinator(MDSC), and Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) and
   their interfaces.

Missing a couple of spaces before the brackets.

YL>> Corrected.
---

Is Figure 1 any different from Figure 2 of RFC 8453?  If it is the same, why do you need to repeat it here?

YL>> Perhaps adding the text would clarify: 

OLD: The ACTN reference architecture identified a three-tier control
   hierarchy as depicted in Figure 1:

NEW: The ACTN reference architecture is shown in Figure 1 for the convenience. It identifies a three-tier control hierarchy as depicted in Figure 1:

---

I like section 1 and its subsections, but they are quite long for an Introduction. I think you might rename this to something like "Background", and add a new, short Introduction that is like the Abstract but with a few more words. You could fold your section 1.3 into that.

YL>> Agreed and done. 
---

2.
s/ACTN [RFC8453] architecture/The ACTN architecture [RFC8453]/ s/Operator may choose/Operators may choose/

YL>> Done.
---

2.1

OLD
   [RFC6805] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] describes a hierarchy of
   PCE with Parent PCE coordinating multi-domain path computation
   function between Child PCE(s).  It is easy to see how these
   principles align, and thus how stateful H-PCE architecture can be
   used to realize ACTN.
NEW
   [RFC6805] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] describe a hierarchy of
   PCEs with a Parent PCE coordinating multi-domain path computation
   function between Child PCEs.  It is easy to see how these 
   principles align, and thus how the stateful H-PCE architecture can 
   be used to realize ACTN.
END

YL>> Corrected as such. 
---

2.3

s/into network provisioning/into a network provisioning/

YL>> Done. 

---

2.3

The first paragraph has a couple of cases of ambiguously assigned actions that could be fixed.

...customer requests/commands are mapped...
Mapped by what/whom?

YL>> "by the MDSC" is added.

...it provides mapping and translation...
What is "it"?

YL>> s/it/the MDSC
---

2.2 sort of defines "network slice" and that is OK.
2.4, however, uses "VN slice" without explanation.
Can you make this consistent?

YL>> s/network slice/VN slice
---

4.
s/the Figure 2/Figure 2/

YL>> Corrected.

OLD
o  VN Instantiate: MDSC is requested
NEW
o  VN Instantiate: When an MDSC is requested END

YL>> Done. 
---

6.
s/It also list/It also lists/

YL>> Done
---

6.

I think you need to do a little more work. The first paragraph nicely lists the relevant security requirements. I think you need to say how each of these is met by security in PCEP. The second paragraph does mention how to secure PCEP, but doesn't make it clear whether this addresses the requirements.

YL>> I would add a sentence as follows in the end of the first paragraph.

NEW: The security considerations discussed in [RFC5440] are relevant for
   this document, this document does not introduce any new security
   issues. 


The section also only mentions PCEP on the MPI, but the document also describes using PCEP on the CMI.

YL>> Added CMI; s/PCEP on the MPI/PCEP on the CMI and MPI