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 Early Review/Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to
resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability-18.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: 04/15/2026
IETF LC End Date: N/A
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
  As indicated by the introduction, this document covers the
  applicability of Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
  to provide the full automation of management and control for
  Service Providers' transport networks, spanning IP/MPLS,
  optical, and microwave technologies, is crucial to addressing
  customer demands for high-bandwidth applications, such as
  ultra-fast mobile broadband for 5G and fiber connectivity services.

  This is an extremely broad topic and requires a lot of pre-knowledge.
  While the document does a good job of providing references, I found
  myself feeling like I'd walked into the middle of a movie and almost
  wished I hadn't agreed to review it since my understanding of optical
  networks is limited. I guess I should have known by the length of the
  draft title.

  However, I think the document is very useful in that it provides
  references to applicable protocols and YANG models for accomplishing
  this multi-layer discovery and path automation. It also identifies
  functional gaps required to accomplish ACTN POI.


Major Issues: N/A


Minor Issues:

 1. Perhaps, the introduction could include a list of prerequisite
    understanding and a better preview of what follows than the
    3 paragraphs on page 5.

 2. The second sentence below is awkwardly phrased.

     PNC Domain:  Part of the network under the control of a single PNC
      instance.  It is subject to the capabilities of the PNC which
      technology is controlled.

 3. Why not H-MDSC and L-MDSC rather than inverting the compound acronym?

 4. ROADM, CNC, WSON, OTN, OTS, OTSi, ILA, CBR, and WDM are used
    without expansion of definition. Possibly other optical acronyms
    are not expanded on first use .

 5. In section 4, what do you mean by "IETF notifications"?

 6. Assuming the plug-id concept for LTPs is described in one of the
    reference documents.

 7. Section 7.1, add that LLDP can be authenticated/encrypted using the
    IEEE 802.1AE [MACsec] standard.

 8. Add a reference or definition of "muxponder".


Nits: See attached RFC diff.

Thanks,
Acee