Hi Ketan, See in-line.
Regards, Dan On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:27 PM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 1. Section 6.10 includes: > > > > > Note to IANA (RFC editor to remove this before publication): The new > > registry creation request below is also present in the draft-ietf- > > pce-segment-routing-policy-cp. IANA is requested to process the > > registry creation via the first of these two documents to reach > > publication stage and the authors of the other document would update > > the IANA considerations suitably. > > > > As I understand, if this document reaches publication before > > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp, Section 6.6 of the latest will > be > > removed, and the opposite. However, the tables are not identical. In > Table 10, > > Section 6.10 in this document values 5-255 are Unassigned, while in > Section 6.6 > > of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp values 5-255 are Reserved. > > KT> We say "... and the authors of the other document would *update* > the IANA considerations suitably." - so we won't be removing section > 6.6 of this document. We'll do what is correct/needful under guidance > from the IANA team. If there is a different/better way to deal with > such "race conditions", we are open to adapt. > > My concern was not about the "race conditions" which I am sure IANA will know how to deal with, but with the fact that the two tables are not identical. in Section 6.10 in this document values 5-255 are Unassigned, while in Section 6.6 of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp values 5-255 are Reserved. 'Unassigned' and 'Reserved' is not the same thing. You need to make these two consistent.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
