- the are many comparison with PCE technique along the doc. - well that's
fine but outside the scope of the document except if the purpose is to
indicate how different techniques can be combined together and which
interop issues may result from it
Because there are indeed two path computation techniques, it is useful to keep these references in order to provide a fair comparison. We could of course come up with a separate applicability ID, but there are already quite a few related IDs, thus it is preferable to keep the text here. I'll double check if there's any redundancy though.
o) a couple of specific comments
end of section 2:
section 3.1: "* The complete list of boundary LSRs along the path"
-> list of domain identifier e.g. AS numbers also applies here ?
last § of section 3.1 is the most important one, signaling protocol are
independent of the routing topology itself, i.e. not because a node is
an ABR or an ASBR that comp. occurs but simply because he has no path
to reach the next (loose) hop - an intermediate node should still maintain
capacity to perform such operation
section 3.3 "The path computation
technique described in this document applies to the case of a single
AS made of multiple IGP areas, multiples ASs made of a single IGP
areas or any combination of the above. For the sake of simplicity,
each routing domain will be considered as single area in this
document. "
-> not sure to understand the reasoning, at the end these examples must
remain illustrative and not restrict applicability - all these tutorial
like material should better go in an appendix -