Subject: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02

From: Mike McBride via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:09:54 -0700

Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review result: Has Nits

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review Date: Oct. 30 2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC)
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document is near ready for publication. It has nits that should be at
least considered prior to publication.

Comments:

Great job on the easy to understand draft. I probably don't want to know the
history of why this is an individual draft but I am curious. I'll ask Adrian
over a drink sometime.

Major issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits for your consideration:

Abstract:
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol"
-capitalize "communications" as you do in the Introduction.

4. Compatibility Considerations
..
"It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as described by
the updated text presented in Section 3 so many implementations, lacking
guidance from RFC 8231, will still have implemented a consistent and
future-proof approach."

For better readability change to:
"It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as described by
the updated text presented in Section 3. Therefore, many implementations,
lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have implemented a consistent and
future-proof approach." Or something similar.

Consider removing all instances of the word "so".

thanks,
mike

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:25:13 -0000

Hi Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

> Great job on the easy to understand draft. I probably
> don't want to know the history of why this is an individual
> draft but I am curious. I'll ask Adrian over a drink sometime.

Not rejecting the idea of a drink, but just sharing with the wider community...

It is fun to exercise the full range of IETF process options from time to time.
The chairs did not think it was necessary to delay the draft by putting it into the adoption queue and going through all that piece of process when all that was needed was a last call.

> -capitalize "communications" as you do in the Introduction.

Oh look! Officially there is no 's' on Communication. (Also right in the Introduction)
Thanks.

> Consider removing all instances of the word "so".

So, you think 'so' is so so-so?

Yup. Caught a couple of equally ambiguous cases.

Best,
Adrian