Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <> Mon, 18 February 2019 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACA313104B; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:04:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZnJa5rOx3jQN; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:04:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7291274D0; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:04:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1IM44uf025355; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:04:04 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E580A2203B; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:04:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFC3B2203A; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:04:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1IM3xvX018294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:04:01 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: "'Andrew G. Malis'" <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:03:57 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <028101d4c7d5$db57e8c0$9207ba40$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0282_01D4C7D5.DB57E8C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJkFBHT/gDib0bVr3+qjq6C5VnlM6THg2rw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.734-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--22.734-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--22.734200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: ZFzIhWOuIzvxIbpQ8BhdbHNpNmoJ1zd8EtdrY/Wb3fP0IKAowY45No1e cYQjcUBP45HLzdQc+37OcFFZt55M35SL8e/MGApZypeMiaCPnxsjo8c0NkYYIkKhgpRwquu/lOt s73NQ5aPhZ3LPuBJl7bhOfjl4szPqDtZgR42ZNmdzabd7lo/ephluk36HDQp7l9UVnK8KIxwRcX r4B8btTtrOiTgZsNXyKSprdJjAfUZqcOCJ4oqGatTebYqixzILE7JInT4wddoUtdRZTmEaIaMbQ xR3nuqjTh5zZ/l8EAKPByyhRJUrm3lO7AD46Rq5PmVMROjFDVXylcnpAboruhMabDrZlAep7/+9 swuISRVLbeMXCgjtvX7W5bdwgnW8W/CDvdPg8vyKC6Im4I1RF/hs+N+bSEhB4pinC0b7AdVdqWv miTG8mp/Xz1rC/1g0tF3RbBlJV000nIDKoCZxv3uTVkeYosXtuacNrbMY+LS17wx8kgvnlGuxZe j2U7/qdvgGbsWpCctcefQrYJsh7FOi9a5lapaRZjQijgrFvzrVWJXkRYrtO5soi2XrUn/JlR1cT 9YafQVKWdTfwsJjy9CpCFLDTHZUOwBXM346/+yfIY1j4Q5Gz0+SYlivFM2Tc9t3AA4+n7ZOe/Iw +PdJ6LpOaXkn1kQa
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:04:12 -0000

Nice review, thanks Andy.




From: Andrew G. Malis <> 
Sent: 18 February 2019 21:04
To: <> <>
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt



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

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-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt
Reviewer: Andy Malis
Review Date: 18 February 2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC)
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.


It was very easy to follow the draft. Excellent work by all involved.

Major issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.


1. Section 3.1, second paragraph:

For P2MP this is an added advantage, where the size of message is much larger.

For P2MP, where the size of message is much larger, this is an added advantage.

2. Section 5.1, fifth paragraph:

Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate):  is a PCEP

Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): PCInitiate is a PCEP

3. Section 5.2, first paragraph:

PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in open message.

PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object.

4. Section 5.2, third paragraph (N Flag): In two places, replace "changes" with "change".

5. Section 5.3, first paragraph: Expand "LSR" (Label Switching Router) on first use. It's not on the RFC Editor's list of well-known acronyms.

6. Section 5.3, second paragraph: Expand "PCED" (PCE Discovery TLV) on first use.

7. Section 6.2, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the paragraph.

8. Section 6.5, first paragraph: In the second line, replace the comma with a period and capitalize the following "this".

9. Section 6.5, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the paragraph.

10. Section 8, second paragraph: Add the word "The" to the start of the paragraph.

11. Section 11.2, first paragraph. Change "and a registry was created" to "and the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field subregistry was created"

12. Section 11.3, first paragraph: Change "and a registry was created" to "and the LSP Object Flag Field subregistry was created"