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-pce-wson-rwa-ext-08
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 10/22/2018
Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be 
considered prior to publication.

Comments/Nits:
The draft is overall easy to understand.
However, there is a need to address some nits and make minor changes for better 
readability.

Specific details below:
1.       Section 3: The following text could elaborate the function/properties 
of a 3R regenerator in a little bit more detail.
"On the other hand, translucent networks include 3R regenerators that are 
sparsely placed." :
2.       Figure 1:  "SwCap": this could use some more info in the text 
somewhere.
3.       Section 4:
a.       " the PCEP extensions that are going to be specified in this document 
based on
   this architecture." ->
" the PCEP extensions that are going to be specified in this document are based 
on
   this architecture."
4.       Section 4.1:
a.        text says that the WA object must be after the Endpoints object and 
does not say anything about ordering w.r.t. any following objects. It would be 
desirable to make an explicit statement either saying that ordering w.r.t. the 
other following objects is irrelevant, since the text is implying that that is 
the case.
b.      The term "explicit label control (ELC)" seems to have been coined in 
this draft and does not exist in RFC4003: while it logically follows from 
RFC4003, defining a new term in this doc should refer to lingo used in RFC4003 
to enable better readability.
5.       Section 4.3:
a.       "Note that the Action field can be set to 0 when unnumbered link 
identifier is used." : not clear. Please clarify and this sentences belongs in 
a paragraph of its own to avoid entanglement with "action bits" description.
b.      "See Section 4.2.1. for the encoding of the Link Identifiers Field." : 
4.2.1 -> 4.3.1
c.       "See Section 4.2.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section 4.2.2. 
for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively." -> 4.3.1 and 4.3.2
6.       Section 4.3.1:
a.       IPv4 address and IPv6 address as show in the figure do not align 
correctly as per the lengths: kindly fix.
b.      4.3.2: "section 2.6," hyperlink links to this draft rather than to 
RFC7579 as intended. Same for other sections referred in this section.
7.       Section 5:
a.       "Reply for wavelength allocation as discussed" -> "Reply for 
wavelength allocation request as discussed'
b.      4.2.1/4.2.2 -> 4.3.1/4.3.2
8.       Section 8.2/8.5/8.6: is this IANA request really necessary since an 
existing subTLV format is being re-used?


Regards
Ravi




_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to