Hi,

Please find below the Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) review for draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-11.


Review of   draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases
Type        Early Review
Team        Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Reviewer    Carlos Pignataro 



Summary:

This is a useful and easy-to-understand document. There are a number of grammatical errors, notably missing articles; while they do not get in the way of readability, they ought to be fixed. This document describes use cases for a PCE as a central controller, and has an Informational intended status.


More Substantive:

The main relatively substantive comment I have relates the organization of References. To understand SR, SFC, or BIER use cases, I'd expect the main document specifying that technology (e.g., RFC8402, RFC7665, etc.) would be a Normative Reference. Yet, all of those are in the Informative section. I'd review this.

Also, in regards to:

Appendix A.  Other Use Cases of PCECC

   This section lists some more advanced use cases of PCECC that were
   discussed and could be worked on in future.

CMP: This organization carries some Risk. First, what defines what "Advanced" is to include here or in the main part of the document?

CMP: Second, does "could be worked on in future" imply that these are not worked, not solved, could be wrong or incomplete or insecure, etc.?

CMP: So, net-net, I'd recomment to either (1) move these to the main part of the document, or (2) move them out of the document, either (2a) delete them or (2b) push them to another I-D to be progressed and solved.



Minor:

3.4.  PCECC for Load Balancing (LB)

CMP: THis section could describe more the LB expected, if ECMP, UCMP, etc.


3.8.  PCECC for SFC

CMP: This section could specify more explicity the role of metadata and how a PCE/PCECC has a role there. Largely, it describes the forwarding of SFCs, less so the shared context -- those being the 2 key definitions for SFC.

Appendix B.  Contributor Addresses

   Following authors contributed text for this document and should be
   considered as co-authors:


CMP: I do not follow this sentence -- are co-authors or contributors? 
CMP: Is this defining something different than the RFC Editor definitions?


More Editorial:

Please find some nits and editorial suggestions:

           Use Cases for PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC).

CMP: "for *a* PCE" and remove the ending "."


   PCECC:  PCE as a central controller.  Extension of PCE to support SDN
   functions as per [RFC8283].

CMP: Capitalize "Central Controller"


I hope these help and are clear and useful.

Thanks!

Carlos.