Hi, Loa:
Thanks for your review. We have updated the draft accordingly. Detail responses are inline below. I also includes the word responses for your reference. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 2:28 PM To: [email protected]; "review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-.all"@ietf.org; TEAS WG Chairs <[email protected]>; TEAS WG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Yemin (Amy' <[email protected]>; LucAndré Burdet <[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] teas RtgDir review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09 Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09 Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2020-07-08 IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: copy-from-I-D - Experimental (see issues list). Summary: I'm departing from the normal list, since if this would have been a standard tracks document there would have been serious issues. However, the document describes a TE experiment in a native IP network. I think is so interesting that I wouldn't object if the issues I point are not (fully) resolved. Actually I would very much like to see published and followed up by a document that reports the results from the experiment. I have the following issues with the document. It is a framework that gives the framework for an experiment. Its intended status is Experimental. While agree that the accompanying specification should be Experimental I think that in accordance with earlier document a framework should be Informational. [WAJ] Actually, this draft define the architecture for traffic engineering within Native IP network(CCDR). Should we change the phrase from “framework” to “architecture”, and keep the document in “Experimental” track? We have also discussed the possible status of this draft, at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YIMuXe1rM46aewPgfzMJrP-hPUA/ The document describes the experiment in some detail, I would like to see more, especially evaluation criteria and bench marking. To have an overview of the test bed would be interesting. [WAJ] We have some simulation results, as described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8735. Experiment in real filed will have similar results because the effect of such solution depends mainly on the performance of PCE. More data can be obtained after the PCEP extension draft(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-05) been standardized. This is also the reason that we put this document in “Experimental” Status now. I would recommend that someone take a look at the document from a language point of view. When I read I find myself correcting and clarifying the English (this is probably not a good idea, since my English is probably worse than the current authors). There are loads of not expanded abbreviations, authors should go through the document and compare to: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt to decide what needs to be expanded or not. I would also want to suggest that someone with experience of "Native IP networks". both specification and operation should look at the document. >From the early days of MPLS I remember that one motivation to create a strong tunnel technology was that the Route Reflectors no longer scaled. [WAJ] The solution descried in this document does not decrease the scalability of RR. The forwarding plan will not pass RR. I normally review document based on a word document, I have included the word-file, and it contains about everything form major issues to nits. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Senior MPLS Expert <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09(waj).docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
