Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-10

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your review. I made an update -
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-11

On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 3:57 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I'm a day late on the WGLC review. Sorry.
>
>
>
> Chairs, don't you think you should have notified the PCE working group
>
> about this last call? Maybe you can drop them a note to give them a
>
> change to make any comments while the authors are handling the TEAS
>
> last call comments and the shepherd is doing their business?
>
>
>
>
>
> I've reviewed and commented on this document in the past, and the
>
> authors updated the text to address my concerns. I have a few further
>
> minor comments below, but otherwise I have no objection to this document
>
> moving forward.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
> You have just one use of "MUST", in Appendix A.3, and an Appendix is not
>
> normative and so shouldn't use BCP 14 language.  So you should change
>
> his to "must".
>
>
Ack.

>
>
> You have one use of "SHOULD" in 3.3.2. Given how everywhere else uses
>
> "should", this looks odd and can probably change.
>
>
>

Agreed.

> You also have a number of uses of "SHOULD" in Appendix A.4. The same
>
> logic applies that you shouldn't be using normative language in a non-
>
> normative section of the document, so you should change to "should".
>
>
>

Changed.

> There is also one use of "MAY" in A.4. Same logic.
>
>
>

Ack.

> Thus Requirements Language boilerplate is not needed and should be
>
> removed.
>
>
>

Removed.

> ---
>
>
>
> Section 1
>
>
>
> s/draft/document/
>
>
>

Ack

> ---
>
>
>
> Section 2 could probably use references for the terminology. How about:
>
>
>
>    OSPF   rfc 2328 and rfc 5340
>
>    IS-IS  rfc 1195
>
>    PCC    rfc 4655
>
>    PCE    rfc 4655
>
>    TE     draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis
>
>
Done

>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> 3.1
>
>
>
> s/PCE- based/PCE-based/
>
>
>
> SID is used without expansion
>
>
>

Ack

> ---
>
>
>
> I think 3.1 is supposed to be a general introduction to the remaining
>
> subsections of section 3. It might be helpful if some text in 3.1 made
>
> this clear because, otherwise, section 3.1 seems very lightweight and
>
> speculative, but as an introduction to the sections that follow, it is
>
> fine.
>
>
>
> You might event 'promote' the text from 3.1 to section 3.
>
>
>

Add a list in section 3 with some more explanation.

> ---
>
>
>
> Figures:
>
>
>
> - The figure in section 3.2 needs a caption and figure number
>
> - The figure in section 3.3.1 needs a caption and figure number
>
> - The figure in section 3.4.1 needs a caption and figure number
>
> - The figure in section 3.4.2.1 needs a caption and a figure number
>
> - The figure in section 3.4.2.2 needs a caption and a figure number
>
> - The figure in section 3.6 needs a caption and a figure number
>
> - All figures should be explicitly referenced in the text (i.e., don't
>
>   use "in the figure below" but use "in Figure 3"). You can do this
>
>   using <xref>
>
>
>

Done

> ---
>
>
>
> 3.2
>
>
>
> Segment Routing, LDP, and RSVP-TE could use references on this, their
>
> first, use.
>
>
>
> s/[RFC8664] specify/[RFC8664] specifies/
>
>
>

Ack

> ---
>
>
>
> 3.2.2
>
>
>
> s/the PCECC just need/the PCECC just needs/
>
> s/path just need/path just needs/
>
>
>

Ack

> ---
>
>
>
> 3.4
>
>
>
> Please expand P2MP or mLDP on first use.
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> 3.4.2.2
>
>
>
> Please expand PLR and MP on first use.
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> 3.7
>
>
>
> Please expand NSH on first use
>
>
>

Ack

Thanks again for looking through the document again!

Regards,
Dhruv

> *From:* Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> *Sent:* 17 June 2022 08:12
> *To:* TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-10
>
>
>
> All,
>
> This starts a two-week working group last call on
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases/
>
>
>
> The working group last call ends on July 1st, 2022.
>
> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>
> Note: IPR has been disclosed on this document
>
>
> Thank you,
> Pavan and Lou
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>