Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-03 Reviewer: Thomas Morin Review Date: 2017-07-10 IETF LC End Date: ? Intended Status: Informational Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication. Comments: Saying that the draft is well written would be an understatement: it reads like a fairy tale. And a nicely illustrated one. Beyond the (barely) private joke, despite the document being overall fairly honest in detailing the conditions under which the PCE architecture and PCEP could be generically applicable to central control, I'm under the impression that the document could exercise a bit more criticism on this idea in some places. In particular, section 3.2.3 on service delivery and the start of section 4, may lead the reader into believing that it it may actually be easy to adapt PCEP for this use case ("only realtively minor changes"), even though the document does not provide rationale to support that this would be easier than, for instance, completing the Netconf/YANG framework for the same purpose. That is to say, the document would be more interesting in this area, if it was discussing whether or not actually choosing to extend PCEP for this purpose is a direction to favor in particular. Nits: First paragraph of section 2.1.1 ends with 'control "domains." ' where I would have expected 'control "domains".', but this is possibly just me being not aware of a typography rule.