Thank you so much for your review and help!
Cheng
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional....@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; last-c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09
On 10/3/24 4:47 AM, Cheng Li wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you so much for your review! We have updated the draft according to
> your comments, please take a look.
Looks good.
Thanks,
Paul
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
> optional-10
>
> Please see more details below inline.
>
> Respect,
> Cheng
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 7:09 PM
> To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional....@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
> Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; last-c...@ietf.org
> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
> IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2024-10-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-03
> IESG Telechat date: ?
>
> Summary:
>
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
> fixed before publication.
>
> (Arguably the first nit is a minor issue. I decided it didn't warrant
> raising the severity of the review to "has issues".)
>
> NITS: 4
>
> 1) NIT/MINOR ISSUE: Clarity of logic
>
> In sections 3.*, the message handling rules have complex nested logic
> regarding the handling of the P, I, and R flags across multiple messages. As
> written these have the potential to be misunderstood. I suggest it could be
> helpful to provide some diagrams to summarize this logic. For instance, state
> diagrams or tables.
>
> [Cheng]Thank you for you suggestion, this is helpful. However, this nested
> logic is quite normal in PCEP, people in PCEP WG should be familiar with this
> design. how about let's keep it now?
>
> 2) NIT: Ignoring things
>
> Section 3.3.3 says: "The I flag has no meaning in the PCinitiate message
> [RFC8281] and is ignored."
>
> Ignoring things often proves to turn out badly. Also, this statement is
> non-normative. I suggest you at least say senders MUST clear this flag, while
> receivers SHOULD/MUST ignore it.
> [Cheng]Updated, thanks!
>
> 3) NIT: Language usage
>
> There are minor issues of language usage throughout the document.
> For instance: use of "is" vs. "are", and singular vs. plural nouns. I started
> to enumerate these but decided that a long list of these would not be
> helpful. These don't impact readability, and I trust they will eventually be
> corrected by the editor.
> [Cheng]Updated, thanks! We need RFC editors' help for sure 😊
>
> 4) NIT: Typo
>
> In section 3.1:
>
> s/To safely use this future/To safely use this feature/ [Cheng]Good
> catch! Thank you again!
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
