[Pce] Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-08
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 21 February 2019 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 2964112F1A2; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 07:08:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 hjnf3i4lG9KS; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 07:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 4124012D7F8; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 07:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1LF7wf1027818; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:07:58 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C522203B; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:07:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBEB42203A; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:07:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([114.247.104.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1LF7pTB021168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:07:56 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:07:50 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <061f01d4c9f7$3a4ce510$aee6af30$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdTJ9vKxuw50uiZTSuWGFVrqoLsMkQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 114.247.104.200
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24446.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.019-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--10.019-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24446.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--10.019000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: BmVDvnCXigT0d2KBPeDt5nBRIrj8R47F7yWPaQc4INRF+YXPIqAdvgku iFJsQqOR70XlCYi9UKeWYfquGnYvprN29TBG6C8FCz1WR8KHe4D4uJ1REX4MHdCmiQVJO8KAwWg c7atafEp5Zq5B1M+nZMmS2VWIvX2+YY3ozW+Engc/QdUh6LEl0CH2Y0Xxk8nYXCmcAC8DBrM9CU on0NTGeS7AOmWA7PSoSHd+RjLgi2MeszLHPCQb9Ow8wbnnSw8bSuH+GfgmQGcoDMZ3xV44iCXda TB+fIOxRZs1/wDJZsfHjnobEzlo7on+iWUVQ4IpQpxiLlDD9FUZKp0SZ4P+dWsxtqQk3w555OFp lL0qPMx83JyW70EfypGTpe1iiCJqtD9qpBlNF8pTptoDfp6JrMRB0bsfrpPIfiAqrjYtFiS9Qw/ 1kjx99FfYjfR/J7mpsKtX9xZRD/3zeR97Hj4Dnn7cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/gVIzCfd9nCGlwaDtGasoFKMfxnU>
Subject: [Pce] Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-08
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:08:11 -0000
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) --- 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. --- Is Figure 1 any different from Figure 2 of RFC 8453? If it is the same, why do you need to repeat it here? --- 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. --- 2. s/ACTN [RFC8453] architecture/The ACTN architecture [RFC8453]/ s/Operator may choose/Operators may choose/ --- 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 --- 2.3 s/into network provisioning/into a network provisioning/ --- 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? ...it provides mapping and translation... What is "it"? --- 2.2 sort of defines "network slice" and that is OK. 2.4, however, uses "VN slice" without explanation. Can you make this consistent? --- 4. s/the Figure 2/Figure 2/ OLD o VN Instantiate: MDSC is requested NEW o VN Instantiate: When an MDSC is requested END --- 6. s/It also list/It also lists/ --- 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. The section also only mentions PCEP on the MPI, but the document also describes using PCEP on the CMI.
- [Pce] Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-applic… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-ap… Leeyoung
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd/LC review of draft-ietf-pce-ap… Adrian Farrel