Thanks Rakesh, sounds good to me. Jon From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.i...@gmail.com> Sent: 21 June 2019 18:30 To: Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth....@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
NOTE: Message is from an external sender Hi Jon, Thank you for the review comments. Please see inline with <RG>... On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick=40metaswitch....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40metaswitch....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi there I have reviewed this draft for the routing directorate as part of preparing it for IETF last call and IESG review. I was familiar with this document from the time that I chaired the PCE working group, but this was the first time I read it all the way through and paid attention to all details. I found it easy to read and understand. I think it is basically ready to go with a few small clarifications and nits, below. Cheers Jon Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 Reviewer: Jon Hardwick Review Date: 18 June 2019 IETF LC End Date: LC not started yet Intended Status: Standards Track Comments Section 3 is somewhat redundant IMO. <RG> We can keep it given the Figure showing the extensions unless there is a preference to remove it. 4.1 you should ideally provide a reference for how to do MBB signalling. <RG> Added [RFC3209]. 4.3 “Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed due to signaling churn, it can notify the PCE to temporarily suspend new LSP setup requests.” I think this is covered by 5.7 as well as the PCE case, but you only refer to 5.7 for the latter. Please point to 5.7 for both cases. <RG> Added. 5.1 Not a big deal, but I wonder if there is any practical reason to differentiate the final two bullets. <RG> There is a precedence for the second bullet error message in [RFC 8231] (e.g. error-value 2). The first bullet error message just comes from the existing behaviour without this extension. 5.6 Why are AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES required (MUST) in the LSPA object of a PCRpt? If the LSP is PCE-initiated, then the PCE already knows what attributes were specified. If the LSP is PCC-Initiated, then the attributes are the PCC’s business – the PCE can’t change them (per 5.5) and I don’t think the PCE even needs to know what they are. <RG> Agree. Removed the sentence. 7.2 Misuses RFC 2119 language to request an action from a working group. In other documents (when there is not already a draft in progress to do it) we have reworded this as “the YANG / MIB could be updated” etc. <RG> Updated the text. Nits 5: “Extensions to the PCEP” would sound better as “PCEP Extensions” <RG> Fixed. 7: In RFC 6123 it says “The Manageability Considerations section SHOULD be placed immediately before the Security Considerations section in any Internet-Draft.” – but here, it comes after. <RG> Updated. Thanks, Rakesh _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
