Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07.txt

["Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald,

Thank you very much for the review. Version -08 is submitted with the suggestions and additional changes:

Section 5:  "this i-d" -> "this document" (to mirror section 8 suggestion)
Section 8:  definitive language, added editor note (to mirror section 5 suggestion)

Thanks again

Andrew


On 2022-11-16, 3:10 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hello,

    I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of
    this draft. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
    see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

    Document: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07
    Reviewer: Donald Eastlake 3rd
    Review Date: 16 November 2022
    Intended Status: Standards Track

    Summary:
    Has Nits.

    Comments:
    This is a straightforward document specifying an "Enforcement" bit in
    the PCEP LSP Attributes Object. This bit operates in conjunction with
    the previously specified L (Local Protection Desired) bit to clarify
    the extent to which local protection is required / desired / undesired
    / prohibited in the path being determined. Appropriate backwards
    compatibility considerations are included.

    Major Issues:
    No Major issues.

    Minor Issues:
    No Minor technical issues but has nits.


    Nits:

    Section 2: Need to be updated as per RFC 8174.

    Section 5, Page 6: Drafts should be written as definite
    specifications, not as proposals. It will not be useful to say this
    has an "early allocation" when this is published as an RFC.
    OLD
       A new flag is
       proposed in this document in the LSP Attributes Object which extends
       the L flag to identify the protection enforcement.

       Bit 6 has been early allocated by IANA as the Protection Enforcement flag.
    NEW
        A Protection Enforcement flag "E" is specified below, extending the L flag.
        RFC Editor Note: The text below assumes the E bit remains the
    early allocation value 6. Please adjust if this changes and remove
    this note before publication.


    Trivia / Editorial Suggestions:

    Section 1, Page 3: re "so therefore" I suggest you pick one of these
    two words and drop the other.
    Add comma: "router processing the SID such as" -> "router processing
    the SID, such as"

    Section 3: Suggest adding entries for the following: LSPA

    Section 4.1, Page 4, 2nd line: "PCEP is with the" -> "PCEP is the"

    Section 4.2, Page 5, 1st paragraph:
    "The boolean bit flag" -> "The boolean bit L flag"
    "The selection for" -> "Selecting"

    Section 4.2, Page 5, 2nd paragraph:
    "if there is anywhere along the path that traffic will be fast
    re-routed at the point of failure" -> "if there is a failure anywhere
    along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at that point"

    Section 4.2, Page 5, 3rd paragraph:
    "rather local failures to cause" -> "rather local failures cause"
    "(ex: insufficient bandwidth)" -> "(e.g., insufficient bandwidth)"
    "resulting for the LSP to be torn down" -> "resulting in the LSP being
    torn down"

    Section 4.2, Page 6: "to instruct the PCE a preference" -> "to give
    the PCE a preference"

    Section 5, Page 7: "criteria however the" -> "criteria; however, the"
    "should interpret and behave when" -> "should behave when"

    Section 5, Page 8: (twice) "It is RECOMMENDED for a PCE to assume" ->
    "It is RECOMMENDED that a PCE assume"
    "ignore the E flag thus it" -> "ignore the E flag. Thus, it"

    Section 8: Since there is only one subsection of Section 8, the
    "Section 8.1" subheading should be deleted.
    When published, this will no longer be an "I-D" so the Reference
    should be changed from "I-D" to "[this document]".

    Thanks,
    Donald
    ===============================
     Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
     2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
     [e-mail],