Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 2007-03-05 IESG Telechat date: 08 March 2007 Summary: The document is ready for publication as Informational RFC. Comments: I have only a very subjective comment. In my opinion requirements drafts should make an abstraction of the solution and just note down the requirements. However, while reading this draft, I got the impression that the authors have been thinking quite a lot on the solution space, haven't separated them from the solution, and have written down a few solutions. Just to illustrate a couple of examples. On Section 4.8 the text reads: The request message MUST allow for the inclusion of the address of the originating PCC. This is a solution for a requirement. Unfortunately it is not clear to me what the requirement is. It is probably something related to the "ability of a PCE to apply PCC-specific policies" or something like that, where a solution is "to record the address of the PCC in request messages, so that the PCE can apply a pcc-specific policy". Another example in Section 4.4: Hence the request message SHOULD allow a request for the identification of path segments computed by a PCE, and the response message SHOULD allow identifying the path segments computed by each PCE. Well, just an opinion.