Hi, Loa: Thanks for your review. We will update the draft in next week to reflect your comments. The detail responses will also be provided later. Comments from other experts are also welcome.
Thanks in advance. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: teas-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:teas-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 2:28 PM To: rtg-...@ietf.org; "review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-.all"@ietf.org; TEAS WG Chairs <teas-cha...@ietf.org>; TEAS WG <t...@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org; 'Yemin (Amy' <amy.ye...@huawei.com>; LucAndré Burdet <laburdet.i...@gmail.com> Subject: [Teas] 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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: l...@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi...@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
