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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

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".

 

You have one use of "SHOULD" in 3.3.2. Given how everywhere else uses

"should", this looks odd and can probably change.

 

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".

 

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

 

Thus Requirements Language boilerplate is not needed and should be 

removed.

 

---

 

Section 1

 

s/draft/document/

 

---

 

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

 

---

 

3.1

 

s/PCE- based/PCE-based/

 

SID is used without expansion

 

---

 

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.

 

---

 

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>

 

---

 

3.2

 

Segment Routing, LDP, and RSVP-TE could use references on this, their

first, use.

 

s/[RFC8664] specify/[RFC8664] specifies/

 

---

 

3.2.2

 

s/the PCECC just need/the PCECC just needs/

s/path just need/path just needs/

 

---

 

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

 

From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 17 June 2022 08:12
To: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
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