|
Thanks a lot for your review,
please find answers inline, a revised ID will be posted shortly
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 19:52 To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions.all@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12 Reviewer: Tianran Zhou
Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. I did not see any special operational or network management related issue. But I saw some other issues. Major: This document includes too many Terms and Acronyms without explanation nor expansion. Most of them are specific to GMPLS/transport network. I strongly suggest the authors can have a Terms section to explain them all. [MC] A Terminology section is added Minor: It seems the abstraction is too simple with just one sentence. Could you describe a littel more about the what and why? The new abstract will read: OLD: This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of GMPLS control plane.
NEW:
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are
identified in [RFC7025] .
This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control
plane to address those requirements.
Cheers, Tianran |
