Hi, My apologies for slow response. On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:26 PM Aijun Wang <wangaj3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Donald: > > > > Thanks for your careful review. > > I have updated the draft according to your suggestions, except one minor change for the name of the document. > > It seems “Path Computation Element (PCE) based Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Network”is more better? Thanks for making the changes. I agree that adding the word "based" to the title is an improvement. Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > > I have uploaded the new version on the IETF repository. > > Detail responses are inline below. > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > From: d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:58 PM > To: iesg@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip.all@xxxxxxxx > Cc: secdir <secdir@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-14 > > > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > The summary of the review is Ready with Issues. > > > > Security: > > This is a very high level Informational document about a general method of traffic engineering using multiple BGP sessions and PCE. The Security Considerations section is adequate except that I would recommend adding a reference for BGP security, perhaps to RFC 7454. > > [WAJ] Done, thanks. > > > > Other Issues: > > The title of the document doesn't really make it clear what it is about and does not spell out some acronyms. I suggest the following: > > Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP NetworkNetworks > > [WAJ] Just add one word “based” to become “Path Computation Element (PCE) based Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Network” > > > > Editorial: > > There are a number of editorial/typo issues including the curious lack of any expansion or definition for the first three acronyms listed in Section 2 on Terminology and what appears to be a line sliced off the bottom of Figure 3. Also, I think a reference should be given where BGP Flowspec is mentioned in Section 7.1, presumably to the rfc5575bis draft. See attached for detailed change suggestions in MS Word with tracked changes and, alternatively, as a PDF thereof. > > [WAJ] Done, thanks. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
