[Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03

Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sun, 13 August 2017 13:47 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150263205807.26527.8869013927407425945@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 06:47:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/pjoZDtE2zbMxIADrA_7ufmjEuQU>
Subject: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03

Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-08-13
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-24
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31

Summary: The document is ready for publication as standard track RFC

I read all the document and also did a compare with RFC6006 to look at the
changes.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In section 4.2 I am not sure why is this sentence there, is it for the
current yang document or for a future one. Why have it at all?-"The PCEP YANG
module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to also include the P2MP
related parameters."

[Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-r… Roni Even
Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Roni Even
Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody