Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04.txt

[Jamal Hadi Salim <[e-mail]>]

Acked-By: Me

cheers,
jamal

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Daniel King <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dear Jamal, Martin, Donald and Joerg,
>
> Thank you for your reviews and comments of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk. We
> have addressed all the outstanding comments and recently uploaded a new (05)
> version of the document:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-05
>
> Kind Regards,
> H-PCE Authors
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 18 August 2012 13:55
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
>
> 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-hierarchy-fwk-04.txt
> Reviewer: Jamal Hadi Salim
> Review Date: 2012-08-18
> IETF LC End Date: 2012-08-24
> Intended Status: Informational
>
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has minor but
> important readability nits that should be considered prior to publication.
>
> Comments:
> The document describes how the PCE architecture can be extended through the
> use of hierarchical relationship between domains to compute an optimum path
> over a sequence of domains.
> The draft is well written with good clarity on the purpose and functionality
> of the intended messages.
>
>
> Major Issues:
> None
>
> Minor Issues:
> None
>
> Nits:
> 1) The term "antonymous" appears 5 times it almost made me believe it was
> intended. I think that should be "autonomous".
>
> 2) Section 1.3.1
> "See Section 5.1" should be "See Section 4.1"
>
> 3) Section 1.3.2.1
> "Within a Carrier's Carrier ..."
> should be:
> "Within a Carrier's carrier .."
> i.e second carrier is all lower-case
>
> 4) Section 2.2.
> Unnecessary empty line after:
> "from its entry BNs to its exit BNs that connect to the rest of the"
>
> 5) Section 4.6.2
>
> i) "described in Section 5.6.1"
> should be:
> "described in Section 4.6.1"
>
> ii) "(See Section 5.5)"
> should be:
> "(See Section 4.5)"
>
> 6) Section 4.7
> ".. path to the egress. The child PCE should return the relevant .."
> should be:
> ".. path to the egress, the child PCE should return the relevant .."
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>