[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-09
Joseph Touch via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sat, 04 July 2020 02:20 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F6E3A0A2A; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 19:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Joseph Touch via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Reply-To: Joseph Touch <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 19:20:51 -0700
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-09
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 02:20:52 -0000
Reviewer: Joseph Touch Review result: Ready with Nits This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC firstname.lastname@example.org if you reply to or forward this review. Overall, the document has no direct transport issues. There are potential issues in coupled documents, notably in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis. Section 184.108.40.206 of that other document indicates three issues of concern: 1) inability to handle transport protocols other than TCP and UDP (e.g., SCTP or DCCP), 2) inability to handle any but initial fragments, and 3) the omission of addressing MTU issues in the associated tunnels. Presumably those will be addressed when that document is reviewed more thoroughly. Nits: I would encourage a revision of the abstract to focus on this document and its contributions, particularly as a single paragraph. The abstract of this document buries the lede; the final sentence would be usefully moved to the front and supporting material explaining context can be moved into the intro or a background section. The abstract could more usefully provide a summary of the actual contents of this document instead, e.g., from paragraph 7 of the introduction. The introduction has similar issues; the document itself is not discussed until the 6th paragraph. Again, it would be useful to focus on this document and address the relation of its contents to other documents and the overall PCE architecture in a background section separately. It also seems odd that this paragraph (#6 of the intro) undermines the terminology of the document that this supplements (as cited in the abstract). These documents as a pair should have consistent use of terminology, coining new terms as needed rather than redefining a key term as different in the two.
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Joseph Touch via Datatracker