[Pce] RTG Area review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 14 May 2014 06:17 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F571A0240; Tue, 13 May 2014 23:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 O3mizEOfwOL8; Tue, 13 May 2014 23:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5407C1A023C; Tue, 13 May 2014 23:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (unknown [112.208.34.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D6AC180203E; Wed, 14 May 2014 08:17:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53730A82.7000606@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:17:38 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures.all@tools.ietf.org, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ajtD_pRhw4axooedRZajUkSUjHI
Subject: [Pce] RTG Area review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 14 May 2014 06:17:55 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate,please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-06 Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2013-05-14 IETF LC End Date: couldn't find Intended Status: Experimental Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: 1. I like that an experimental RFC (for once) actually describe an experiment 2. The abstract says: "The ability to compute paths for constrained point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement for the deployment of P2MP services in MPLS and GMPLS-controlled networks." Where was this defined (reference)? 3. There are a couple of cases where words that ae in the 2119-language appear in the document in lower cases, please check if this is intended or if the normative language are intended. 4. For the terminology section it would be good to know which terms that are defined in this document for the first time, otherwise please give a reference to where to find the definition. 5. This is possibly an oxymoron comment, but it seems to me that the problem statement (section 3) is too focused on describing how hard it is to solve the inter-domain P2MP path computation, rather than to describe what the problem are. 6. I'm a little bit concerned about the requirements, it seems that they are very close to design criteria. 7. Section 7.1 the concept "entry boundary nodes" are used, is this concept defined anywhere? For example from figure 2 I understand that L, W, P and T are entry boundary nodes, while D and E are not. 8. I think it would be good have an H-PCE entry in the terminology section. The document is fairly easy to read and quality is good, there is sometimes a wish from the authors to bring through how dammed hard this problem is to solve - they might be right - but there is a risk of creating a lot of trees that stops you from seeing the forrest (or maybe the other way around). Major Issues: None Minor issues: It seems that the document should lead up to a set of protocol extensions, but in the the only change is to add the C-bit, right? Nits: None - that are not captured in the comments above! /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [Pce] RTG Area review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inte… Loa Andersson