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

I agree with Daniel, with the nits fixed the draft is ready for publication.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:36 PM <daniel@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>