Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Tue, 26 February 2019 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B78130E6A; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2b3cTqNX3lDP; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDA9130E5E; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7CD8261035E5680A073A; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:33:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.53) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:33:58 +0000
Received: from lhreml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.53) by lhreml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:33:58 +0000
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:33:57 +0000
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.112]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:03:45 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09
Thread-Index: AQHUzV/tT//75DaomU+6ugIKlZF986XxfDpQ
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:33:45 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D962112@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <155113646185.10637.8298004858075315120@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155113646185.10637.8298004858075315120@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/nX5gV0df_I_8h4LaeZ6xIcwZsfI>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 04:34:03 -0000

Hi Mike, 

Thank you for your RTGDIR review! Especially thankful for providing suggested texts in your comments. I hope the authors will spin out a new version SOON.  

Just one point - 

> 4. Page 5:
> 
> Replace:
> The hierarchical relationship model is described in [RFC6805]. It is
> applicable to environments with small groups of domains where visibility
> from the ingress LSRs is limited. As highlighted in [RFC7399] applying the
> hierarchical PCE model to large groups of domains such as the Internet is
> not considered feasible or desirable.
> 
> With:
> Move formatting to the right to remain consistent in this section. Under
> "Stateful".
> 

It is better if the text starts with "o" as a separate item in the outer list. As this is not under the Stateful PCE operations.  

Thanks! 
Dhruv (Shepherd/Co-Chair)