[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10

[Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review result: Has Nits

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. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the
Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 1 April 2019
IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2019
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
An informational RFC is being requested by this document. This document
examines the applicability of PCE to ACTN framework.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand. I have only a few
nitty comments that should be considered prior to publication..

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:
1. Page 7, section 3, why is NETCONF not included?
2. page 11. “need PCE as a important function.” Should be “need PCE as an
important function.” 3. page 13. The paths from A to C, why is B31-B34 not
there? 4. page 14. Section “VN Protection”, “need to applied to” should be
“need to be applied to” 5. page 14.
     “In case PNC generates an abstract topology to the MDSC, the
      PCInitiate/PCUpd messages from the MDSC to a PNC will contain a
      path with abstract nodes and links.”
Should it be  “from the MDSC to a PNC” or “from the MDSC to the PNC”?

Thanks,
Yingzhen