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; pce@ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-...@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!
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
