Hi Adrian and Dhruv, Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. We note that you have both sent your approvals; however, we ask that at least one author review the updates and confirm that the document is ready for publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9756 Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Mar 3, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > 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
