Hi, Ines: Thanks for your review. I have updated the draft according to your suggestions. The detail replies are inline below:
Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Ines Robles via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] 发送时间: 2023年7月22日 0:47 收件人: rtg-...@ietf.org 抄送: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip....@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org 主题: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Has Issues Review: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23 Reviewer: Ines Robles Summary: The document defines the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR) based application in Native IP network. No major issues found. Minor issues found as follows: Section 3: Terminology: * "The following terms are defined in this document" --> The following terminology is used in this document? Since the mentioned terms are not defined in the document, for example, the case of CCDR [WAJ] Update to the sentence as you suggested "The following terminology is used in this document" * Also, The document claims that it defines QoS, but it is not mentioned in the text. [WAJ] Delete it. Section 4.1: TBD1: Path is a Native IP path --> TBD1: Path is a Native IP TE path ? (To be aligned with IANA section description) [WAJ] Update Section 6: Error-value=TBD18, BPI/PPR --> Error-value=TBD18, BPI/PPA ? [WAJ] Update to BPI/PPA Section 6.1: "... Peer IP address)" closed parenthesis, but it is not open. [WAJ] Delete the parenthesis, also add some contents to the mentioned sentence. Figure 1: the arrow from PCE to R3 is bidirectional, the arrow from PCE to R1 and R7 are unidirectional, is this correct? [WAJ] They should be all bidirectional, updated. Section 6.2: "... explicit routes operate similar to static routes..." --> in which aspects is similar? in which aspects are dissimilar? [WAJ]Change the sentence to "Such explicit routes operate the same as static routes installed by network management protocol(NETCONF/YANG)" "...network management protocols..." --> it would be nice to add some examples of network management protocols between brackets. [WAJ] Added. One example, NETCONF/YANG Figure 2: The same as Fig. 1. The arrow from PCE to R1 is unidirectional, R2, R4 are bidirectional, is this correct? [WAJ] Bidirectional, Updated. Together with Figure 3&4 Section 9: "..cares only..." --> ...focuses only on...? [WAJ] Updated. Section 10: "...light weight BGP session setup..": It would be nice to add a reference to it. [WAJ] Delete the "light weight", because it is not one formal terminology. Section 12: Should the security considerations mention RFC9050? [WAJ] Added. Section 13.4: errors:: --> errors: [WAJ] Updated. Question: Should this document add a section for Manageability Considerations, like in RFC9050? [WAJ]Because there is no special consideration for the manageability considerations, I add one sentence at the section 10 "Deployment Considerations", as "Manageability considerations that described in RFC9050 should be followed" Thanks for this document, Ines. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
