Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-03

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Thomas for your interesting review!

Authors, please address Thomas's comments.

Deborah


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Morin [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:50 AM
> To: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-03
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 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
> ​https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_rtg_trac_wiki_RtgDir&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=dYt_uZ5uB08O3EFhi
> 5aQ3Fgt9fIdElyYA8nWKgoWnII&s=VgngsyYiKcZuyhBvK4WMbM78q0tadt-
> KHydEo2C7u1A&e=
> 
> 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-teas-pce-central-control-03
> Reviewer: Thomas Morin
> Review Date: 2017-07-10
> IETF LC End Date: ?
> Intended Status: Informational
> 
> Summary:
> 
>      No issues found. This document is ready for publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
>      Saying that the draft is well written would be an understatement:
> it reads like a fairy tale.  And a nicely illustrated one.
> 
>      Beyond the (barely) private joke, despite the document being
> overall fairly honest in detailing the conditions under which the PCE
> architecture and PCEP could be generically applicable to central
> control, I'm under the impression that the document could exercise a bit
> more criticism on this idea in some places. In particular, section 3.2.3
> on service delivery and the start of section 4, may lead the reader into
> believing that it it may actually be easy to adapt PCEP for this use
> case ("only realtively minor changes"), even though the document does
> not provide rationale to support that this would be easier than, for
> instance, completing the Netconf/YANG framework for the same purpose.
> That is to say, the document would be more interesting in this area, if
> it was discussing whether or not actually choosing to extend PCEP for
> this purpose is a direction to favor in particular.
> 
> Nits:
> 
>      First paragraph of section 2.1.1 ends with 'control "domains." '
> where I would have expected 'control "domains".', but this is possibly
> just me being not aware of a typography rule.