Hi,
Here are my review comments as responsible AD. Because they are minor comments,
I am entering them as part of IETF last call rather than getting them fixed
before last call. That should expedite the publication a little.
Thanks,
Adrian
===
idnits shows a couple of issues with your references
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 373, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4927' is defined on line 402, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
These both seem like relevant references and I suggest that you find a
place in the text to point to them.
---
Some work on acronyms, please.
PCE needs to be expanded on first use in the Abstract and the main text
(not on the second use :-)
OTOH, MPLS and GMPLS do not need to be expanded.
PCC shows up in section 2.1
PCReq and PCRep are in 2.1 (but expanded a little later)
P2MP is in section 2.2
ERO and XRO show in section 3.1
PCEP shows in section 3.2
---
Section 1 para 4 seems to say that SRLG is covered in RFC 3473. Are you
sure? Or do you need a different reference?
---
In Section 3.1 reqs (1), (2) and (3) you appear to be limiting the
supported values to only those listed or those in the referenced RFCs.
You may do better to say less. Just point at the base definition of the
signaling fields (in RFC 3473?) and then say "all current and future
values".
---
Section 6
Julien Meuric not Meulic
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pce-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:pce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The
> IESG
> Sent: 25 May 2013 02:26
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: pce@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07.txt> (Requirements
for
> GMPLS applications of PCE) to Informational RFC
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
> (pce) to consider the following document:
> - 'Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE'
> <draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07.txt> as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-06-07. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
> The initial effort of the PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS
> (Multi-protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft
> describes functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS)
> application of PCE (Path computation element).
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req/ballot/
>
>
> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1869/
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce