Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this Internet-Draft. 

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications"_ can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback received.


- Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/

- Reviewer: Michael P

- Review Date: 12/01/2026

- Intended Status: Standards Track

 
---

## Summary 

Choose one: 

- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
 
Overall, I found this document well written and easy to follow. While not my area of expertise, the authors have provided many informative references to support the reader. There are some minor issues to address before publication. 


## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis 

The authors have clearly used RFC 6123, and included subsections as part of Section 10 (Manageability Considerations) to directly address guidance from that document. However, this section should be updated to include the guidance in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/, though there is some overlap between those documents. As such, some of the guidance in Section 10 could thus be expanded, which I have outlined in the Minor Issues section below. 


## Major Issues 

No major issues found. 


## Minor Issues 

SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are used in multiple sections in the document. Where these are used, more guidance would be useful on when exceptions can be made to this and any considerations that implementers/users should have if no following the recommendations. 

The security considerations section uses security considerations from [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281] and [RFC9050], which this document builds upon. While it is true that those considerations should be included, given this is extending previous work and adding functionality, previous considerations may not be sufficient as impacts may change. This should be extended, or explanation given as to why that is not required. 

As stated above, Section 10 should be updated to include additional considerations as per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/. Suggestions based on this are below. 
 
Section 10.2 highlights that the PCEP YANG module could be extended but no further detail. 

Section 10.6 outlines briefly outlines Impact on Network Operations. It's highlighted in section 9, but this section could also discuss the operational aspects of resilience requirements and dependency on any central points of failure.

There is not much discussion of deployment/migration/backwards compatibility. Given there is proof of concepts/implementation status section, is there any guidance that could be given on migration or introduction of this into existing deployments learned from this development? 

Similarly, this document does not include discussion of configuration management and fault management or rationale for not including such guidance, which I believe would be relevant here. 


## Nits 

Clearly effort has been made to include plenty of informational references to support the reader. However, quite a few acronyms are no expanded on first use, with PCE, IGP, OSPF as examples. Ensuring to expand such acronyms would help with readability. Similarly, ensuring capitalisation when defining new acronyms also helps here.

Reference [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] should now be [RFC 9826]