I agree with Daniel, with the nits fixed the draft is ready for publication.
Cheers, Andy On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:36 PM <dan...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just saw the I-D hit WG LC and thought I would have a quick scan of the > latest version. > > Overall, a really useful document. It was intended to highlight the role of > the PCE (including ancillary components) in the context of ACTN, and it > delivers. The document is well written and easy to read, and certainly > ready > to move forward. However, I did find a few minor NITS which I have listed > below. These can be fixed at some point in the process. > > Abstract > s/is component /is a component/ > --- > 1.1.3. Relationship to PCE Based Central Control > s/The section 2.1.3 of /Section 2.1.3 of/ > --- > 1.3 PCE and ACTN > s/describes how the PCE architecture /describes how PCE architecture/ > --- > 2. Architectural Considerations > s/It should be noted that, this document /It should be noted that this > document/ > --- > 2.1. Multi Domain Coordination via Hierarchy > s/describes a hierarchy of PCE with Parent PCE coordinating /describes a > hierarchy of PCEs with the Parent PCE coordinating > s/multi-domain path computation function between Child PCE(s) /multi-domain > path computation function between Child PCEs. > --- > 3. Interface Considerations > s/In case of hierarchy of MDSC /In the case of hierarchy MDSCs > s/The Section 4 describes /Section 4 describes/ > --- > 4. Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP) > s/each with its own PNC and a MDSC at top / each with its own PNC and an > MDSC on top > s/per the example in the Figure 2 /per the example in Figure 2/ > s/Any change in the per-domain LSP are reported to the MDSC /Any change in > the per-domain LSP is reported to the MDSC/ > s/Similarly PNC would convert the path received /Similarly, a PNC would > convert the path received/ > --- > 6. Security Considerations > s/It also list various security considerations /It also lists various > security considerations/ > --- > Need to be consistent with the use of "Per Domain", "Per domain" and "per > domain" > --- > Need to be consistent with the use of "Child PCE" and "child pce" > --- > Need to be consistent with the use of "multi-domain" and "multi domain", > including section titles ("2.1. Multi Domain Coordination via Hierarchy") > --- > A few plural instances should be fixed, I don't think the RFC editors like > the use of "(s)" > --- > > BR, Dan. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce