Dear Christer,
Thank you for your Gen-ART review, please see my responses inline ("DK>>"):
Br, Dan.
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 06 June 2014 09:01
To: [email protected]
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures....@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART review of
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Document:
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-07
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 6 June 2014
IETF LC End Date: 26 May 2014
IETF Telechat Date: 12 June 2014
Summary: The document is well written, with some
editorial nits that the authors may want to address before publication.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial nits:
Q1-G: In the Introduction section, you
expand PCE ("Path Computation Element (PCE)"). After that, I suggest you
don't expand it anymore. I think you do it in a couple of places, in section
1.2 and 3.
DK>> Agree. Well spotted, indeed:
1.2 Scope
3. Examination of Existing Mechanisms
DK>> These can be truncated to "PCE".
Q2-G: Same as Q_G_1, but for PCEP, which
I believe you in addition to the Introduction also expand in section 3.
DK>> Agree.
3. Examination of Existing Mechanisms
DK>> Again, this can be truncated to "PCEP".
Q3_1: In section 1, the draft says:
"The ability to compute constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
(TE
LSPs) for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs in Multiprotocol
Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks
across
multiple domains are therefore required."
Are all these so called
well-known terms (I guess at least MPLS is), or would it be useful to add
some references when/if appropriate?
DK>> These are well-known terms, but we do also state we reuse terminology
which is better defined in specific RFCs in our terminology section. In
summary, I think its ok to leave "as is".
Q4_1_2: In section 1.2, the draft says:
"The experiment is intended to enable research for the Path
Computation Element (PCE)"
Do you mean to say "to
enable research of the usage of the PCE"?
DK>> Agree. The word "usage" would be more apt.
Q5_1_2: In section 1.2, the draft says:
"This document is not intended to replace the intra-domain
P2MP path
computation approach supported by [RFC6006],"
It is a little unclear to me
what you mean be "supported by". Does RFC 6006 defined the approach, or does
RFC 6006 use an approach defined somewhere else, or?
DK>> Aha, I see the ambiguity. RFC6006 defines how PCEP is used to compute
P2MP paths in single domain (intra-domain) networks. So perhaps a better
word would be "defined" rather than "supported".
Q6-7_4_2: In section 7.4.2, s/The procedure as
described in this document/The procedure described in this document
(remove "as")
DK>> Agree.
Q7_7: In section 7, s/ has following
impact -/ has following impacts:
DK>> Agree. In fact, I might suggest "has the following impact:"
Q8_7: In section 7, instead of saying
"requirements specified in the previous section", please point to the actual
section, e.g. "requirements specified in section X of this document".
DK>> Agree. "requirements specified in section 6. of this document."
Q9_7: In section 7, the text says:
"The following sections describe the core-tree based
procedures to
satisfy the requirements specified in the previous section."
Would it be good to also
mention the PCEP extensions? E.g.:
"The following sections describe the core-tree based
procedures, including
PCEP extensions, to satisfy the requirements specified in the previous
section."
DK>> Agree.
Q10_7: As section 7 (including the sub
sections) is quite large, I would suggest to have a section called "7.1
General":
"7. P2MP Path Computation Procedures
7.1. General
A P2MP Path computation can be broken down into two steps of core-
tree computation and grafting of sub-trees. Breaking the
procedure
."
DK>> Ok, if you think it helps the reader.
Q11_7_2: In section 7.2, s/ messages format as
per [RFC5440]/ messages format defined in [RFC5440]
DK>> Agree.
Q12_7_4_2: In section 7.4.2, s/ The procedure as
described in this document/ The procedure described in this document
(remove "as")
DK>> Agree.
Regards,
Christer
DK>> Again, thank you for your review and comments.
Br, Dan.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
