Document: draft-ietf-pce-path-key-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-10-13
IETF LC End Date: 2008-10-22


Summary:

This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a few nits and editorial comments that should be considered first.

Comments:

Section 2.1, paragraph 3:

The last sentence is confusing. "...until the LSR that can process it." does not seem to describe an event that one can wait "until".  
Should it say "...until it reaches the LSR..."?

Section 2.2, paragraph 1:

  s/ingress/"ingress LSR"

Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

No explicit definitions for "Path Key" in either section. If the intent is for the language in section 3.1 to serve as the definition in each of these subsections, it would be good to have something like "Path Key: See section 3.1".  (Although just reprinting it here would allow each of the formal subobject definitions to stand alone a little
better.)

Section 4:

The section covers actions in failure cases, i.e. if the PCE does not recognize itself, or if the requesting LSR receives a negative reply.  
The actions taken in the success case may seem to obvious to state, but it would be good to state them explicitly anyway :-)

Section 5, third bullet point in first list:

Do you mean "DoS attacks" rather than "DNS attacks"?

Section 6.1, paragraphs 2 and 3:

Can you either restate the suggested default, or reference the section? Otherwise, this requires a bit of an easter egg hunt on the part of the reader.

6.2, paragraph 1:

If I read this right, you state a normative requirement that another draft be updated. That seems an odd use of normative language. In any case, am I correct in assuming that someone is ensuring that this update happens?

References:


Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis
has been published as RFC 5298.