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

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Mon, 25 February 2019 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AB2130FD4 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:49:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q90tJOfXxgaN for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:49:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18A301311A7 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 98C2675E3C9CD25CF989 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:49:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:49:01 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.111]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.242]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:48:57 -0800
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "daniel@olddog.co.uk" <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
Thread-Index: AdS/oGNVDQwlBXDjTj2gGuB1a0XbaADxhHMAAn98CAA=
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:48:56 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0E1D5B@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <042101d4bfa2$377d9050$a678b0f0$@olddog.co.uk> <003801d4c323$67754f80$365fee80$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <003801d4c323$67754f80$365fee80$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.123]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/UKwpK9f8HD54fMJeTUA6zDzfzHE>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:49:24 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your comments. All the nits pointed out are corrected. We will upload the revision once we have resolved Adrian's second comments. 

Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of daniel@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:37 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn

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