Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi All, 

Just saw the I-D hit WG LC and thought I would have a quick scan of the
latest version. 
	
Overall, a really useful document. It was intended to highlight the role of
the PCE (including ancillary components) in the context of ACTN, and it
delivers. The document is well written and easy to read, and certainly ready
to move forward. However, I did find a few minor NITS which I have listed
below. These can be fixed at some point in the process.  

Abstract 
s/is component /is a component/
---
1.1.3.  Relationship to PCE Based Central Control
s/The section 2.1.3 of /Section 2.1.3 of/
---
1.3 PCE and ACTN
s/describes how the PCE architecture /describes how PCE architecture/
---
2. Architectural Considerations
s/It should be noted that, this document /It should be noted that this
document/
---
2.1.  Multi Domain Coordination via Hierarchy
s/describes a hierarchy of PCE with Parent PCE coordinating /describes a
hierarchy of PCEs with the Parent PCE coordinating
s/multi-domain path computation function between Child PCE(s) /multi-domain
path computation function between Child PCEs.
---
3. Interface Considerations
s/In case of hierarchy of MDSC /In the case of hierarchy MDSCs
s/The Section 4 describes /Section 4 describes/
---
4.  Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP)
s/each with its own PNC and a MDSC at top / each with its own PNC and an
MDSC on top
s/per the example in the Figure 2 /per the example in Figure 2/
s/Any change in the per-domain LSP are reported to the MDSC /Any change in
the per-domain LSP is reported to the MDSC/
s/Similarly PNC would convert the path received /Similarly, a PNC would
convert the path received/
---
6.  Security Considerations
s/It also list various security considerations /It also lists various
security considerations/
---	
Need to be consistent with the use of "Per Domain", "Per domain" and "per
domain" 
---
Need to be consistent with the use of "Child PCE" and "child pce"
---
Need to be consistent with the use of "multi-domain" and "multi domain",
including section titles ("2.1.  Multi Domain Coordination via Hierarchy")
---
A few plural instances should be fixed, I don't think the RFC editors like
the use of "(s)"
---

BR, Dan.