Hi Donald, Thank you very much for the review. Version -08 is submitted with the suggestions and additional changes:
Section 5: "this i-d" -> "this document" (to mirror section 8 suggestion) Section 8: definitive language, added editor note (to mirror section 5 suggestion) Thanks again Andrew On 2022-11-16, 3:10 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello, I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of this draft. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07 Reviewer: Donald Eastlake 3rd Review Date: 16 November 2022 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: Has Nits. Comments: This is a straightforward document specifying an "Enforcement" bit in the PCEP LSP Attributes Object. This bit operates in conjunction with the previously specified L (Local Protection Desired) bit to clarify the extent to which local protection is required / desired / undesired / prohibited in the path being determined. Appropriate backwards compatibility considerations are included. Major Issues: No Major issues. Minor Issues: No Minor technical issues but has nits. Nits: Section 2: Need to be updated as per RFC 8174. Section 5, Page 6: Drafts should be written as definite specifications, not as proposals. It will not be useful to say this has an "early allocation" when this is published as an RFC. OLD A new flag is proposed in this document in the LSP Attributes Object which extends the L flag to identify the protection enforcement. Bit 6 has been early allocated by IANA as the Protection Enforcement flag. NEW A Protection Enforcement flag "E" is specified below, extending the L flag. RFC Editor Note: The text below assumes the E bit remains the early allocation value 6. Please adjust if this changes and remove this note before publication. Trivia / Editorial Suggestions: Section 1, Page 3: re "so therefore" I suggest you pick one of these two words and drop the other. Add comma: "router processing the SID such as" -> "router processing the SID, such as" Section 3: Suggest adding entries for the following: LSPA Section 4.1, Page 4, 2nd line: "PCEP is with the" -> "PCEP is the" Section 4.2, Page 5, 1st paragraph: "The boolean bit flag" -> "The boolean bit L flag" "The selection for" -> "Selecting" Section 4.2, Page 5, 2nd paragraph: "if there is anywhere along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at the point of failure" -> "if there is a failure anywhere along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at that point" Section 4.2, Page 5, 3rd paragraph: "rather local failures to cause" -> "rather local failures cause" "(ex: insufficient bandwidth)" -> "(e.g., insufficient bandwidth)" "resulting for the LSP to be torn down" -> "resulting in the LSP being torn down" Section 4.2, Page 6: "to instruct the PCE a preference" -> "to give the PCE a preference" Section 5, Page 7: "criteria however the" -> "criteria; however, the" "should interpret and behave when" -> "should behave when" Section 5, Page 8: (twice) "It is RECOMMENDED for a PCE to assume" -> "It is RECOMMENDED that a PCE assume" "ignore the E flag thus it" -> "ignore the E flag. Thus, it" Section 8: Since there is only one subsection of Section 8, the "Section 8.1" subheading should be deleted. When published, this will no longer be an "I-D" so the Reference should be changed from "I-D" to "[this document]". Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected], _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
