Dhruv,
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
Regarding (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / EP-EC): I recognized that there was
more to it, and that using "E" for P-PCE in this document would be
problematic. I guess this is just a conflict between documents that has
to be tolerated.
And it hadn't dawned on me that the linking issues were artifacts of the
automatic generation mechanism.
Thanks,
Paul
On 8/21/19 7:26 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your review, please see inline...
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote:
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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
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.
Added.
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.
The use of notation C-E and E-C is as per RFC 8231
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8231#section-4 where PCC to PCE is
(C-E) and PCE to PCC is (E-C). In this document we wanted to represent
messages between C-PCE (child PCE) to P-PCE (parent PCE) and we used
EC-EP for it and the reverse EP-EC for P-PCE to C-PCE communication.
This was discussed during shepherd review as well (as we were using CE
and PE before but that was causing confusion because of the well known
meaning of those terms in routing).
I would like to keep the existing notations that has WG support.
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?
Updated.
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.
Updated.
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.
The HTML version of the draft is automatically generated from the text
version. The `rfcmarkup` is used to render the HTML of the I-D/sRFCs.
Specifically, rfcmarkup produces the final HTML using heuristics from
the source TXT and this is beyond the control of the authors.
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.
I arranged the words so that rfcmarkup works.
7) NIT: Outdated references:
IdNits reports outdated references. I trust these will be updated in due
course.
Updated.
Working Copy:
https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt
Diff:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt
Thanks!
Dhruv
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
