Thanks for the detailed review. We can address these NITS in a new version.
BR, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> Sent: 20 August 2019 17:29 To: [email protected] Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq&data=02%7C01%7Cd.king%40lancaster.ac.uk%7C0d24550b9fbc4e5be20c08d7258b7fa2%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C1%7C1%7C637019153385705933&sdata=68DF9KuLuw6s4TOiccSfdVFPTknX6B%2BNzoIxxU3amsU%3D&reserved=0>. Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2019-08-20 IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 0 Nits: 7 1) NIT: No glossary Since I am not familiar with the subject domain, when I started reading this document I felt I was lost among the acronyms. While you are good at defining these at first use, I couldn't keep them all in mind as I read. I had to create my own glossary to support me while reading. I would really appreciate having a glossary in the document. 2) NIT: Inconsistent terminology In section 3 two pairs of terms are introduced: (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / EP-EC). IIUC in the first pair "E" stands for "PCE" while in the second pair "E" seems to stand for "Extended", while "P" stands for PCE. I found this very confusing. I think it would be better to allow "E" to mean the same thing in both pairs. Perhaps you could use "X" to stand for "eXtended". Then there would be clear parallels: C -> XC E -> XE Please consider doing something relieve the confusion. 3) NIT: Badly formed sentence I can't parse this sentence in section 3.1: Procedures as described in [RFC6805] are applied and where the ingress C-PCE (Child PCE), triggers a path computation request for the LER in the domain where the LSP originates, sends a request to the P-PCE. Can you rephrase it? 4) NIT: Unclear text In section 3.1 are steps A/B/C/D to be added at the *end*, after step 11? It would help to be explicit. In step (C) of section 3.2, can you please be explicit about which node is to execute these elements? I think it is PCE5, but I'm not certain. 5) NIT: Unlinked references Some RFC references (e.g. [RFC8051] and [RFC8231] in section 1.1, and [RFC8232] in section 3.1) are not linked in the HTML version. I suggest a global search for all such unlinked references in the source. 6) NIT: Bad reference link In the following from section 3.1: Steps 1 to 11 are exactly as described in section 4.6.2 (Hierarchical PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure) of [RFC6805], the the "section 4.6.2" is linked to the non-existent section 4.6.2 of *this* document rather than RFC6805. A similar link to the same spot in section 3.2 is ok. 7) NIT: Outdated references: IdNits reports outdated references. I trust these will be updated in due course. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
