Subject: [Teas] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:44:57 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some editorial comments:

- The abstract is unusually long, and seems more like an introduction. The
second to last paragraph could almost stand by itself as a useful abstract.

- The terms "southbound" and "northbound" could use definition. (I find these
terms cause lots of confusion, since not everyone draws the diagrams with the
same idea of what goes on top or bottom.)

- 2.1.1: It's probably too late at this point to change it, but I find the use
of "domains" unfortunate. That may be one of the most overloaded terms in the
IETF lexicon, if not in that of the networking crowd at large. Since you
describe them as "partitions", I think "partitions" would have been better.

- 2.1.2, 2nd to last paragraph: "This is nominally a simple task if
   there are just two controllers, but can actually be quite complex if
   state changes in the network are not to be lost."

That sentence seems self-contradictory. I don't think it's simple, nominally or
otherwise.