Thank you so much for your review and help! Cheng -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 4:52 PM To: Cheng Li <c.l@xxxxxxxxxx>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional.all@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx 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 <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 7:09 PM > To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional.all@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx > 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! > -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
