Hi there, Thanks for the work.
In line... 1) <!--[rfced] Title a) We note that the document's title expands PCEP as "PCE Communication Protocol"; however, the IANA registry group expands it as "Path Computation Element Protocol" (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). Should this document's title be updated to reflect the name of the registry group being updated, with the inclusion of "Numbers", as shown below? Original: Update to the IANA PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Registration Procedures and Allowing Experimental Error Codes Perhaps: Update to the IANA Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers Registration Procedures and the Allowance of Experimental Error Codes [AF] Yes to both changes. b) FYI - To closer reflect the document's full title, we have updated the short title as follows. The short title appears in the running header in the PDF output. Original: PCEP-IANA Current: PCEP IANA Update --> [AF] Fine 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> [AF] Unusually, I can't think of any. Such a simple document and the title says it all. 3) <!--[rfced] To avoid repetition of "case", may we update this sentence as follows? Original: It will often be the case that previously assigned error codes (in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values sub- registry) can be used to indicate the error cases within an experiment, but there may also be cases where new, experimental error codes are needed. Perhaps: It will often be that previously assigned error codes (in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values sub- registry) can be used to indicate the error cases within an experiment, but there may also be instances where new, experimental error codes are needed. --> [AF] Fine 4) <!--[rfced] Would it be clearer for readers if the following information matches the IANA registry and is in table format (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/>)? Please let us know your preference. Original: IANA is requested to change the assignment policy for this registry to read: Error-Types 0-251 : IETF Review 252-255 : Experimental Use Error-value For all IETF Review Error-Types : IETF Review For all Experimental Use Error-Types : Experimental Use Perhaps: IANA has changed the assignment policy for the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry as follows: Range Registration Procedures Note - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0-251 IETF Review The IETF Review procedure applies to all Error-values (0-255) for Error-Types in this range. 252-255 Experimental Use The Experimental Use policy applies to all Error-values (0-255) for Error-Types in this range. Table 2: PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Registry Assignment Policy --> [AF] Sure. Especially as this is what IANA has done :-) 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - For consistency, and because the capitalization infers that these are procedures, we have removed the quotation marks from the following terms. "Standards Action" "IETF Review" --> [AF] I'm giggling at the idea that capitalisation implies a procedure. I will remember that for future arguments. But, yes, the quotation marks are de trop. 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> [AF] I scanned again, but found nothing of concern. Thanks again, Adrian. -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
