Thanks Orie,
What about expanding that statement to (bold part added):
[RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed through
an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private Enterprise
Numbers (PEN) as described in the IANA registry are same thing as Enterprise
Numbers referred in this document and [RFC7470]. The registration procedures
and the registry location are described by [RFC9371].
By the way, there is also similar comment from John in other mail thread
(attached), where he is also pointing to RFC2578, so I’ll wait for conclusion
on that part before submitting
Regards,
Samuel
From: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org;
pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com
Subject: Re: Orie Steele's No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10: (with COMMENT)
> This document clarifies the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN) as described in
> the IANA registry.
> Different instances of the object MAY have different Enterprise Numbers.
In order to clarify, I think you need to relate "Private Enterprise Numbers" to
"Enterprise Numbers" and to the sentence:
> The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message. Multiple
> instances of the object MAY be contained in a single PCRpt message. Different
> instances of the object MAY have different Enterprise Numbers.
Otherwise the reader does not know if "Private Enterprise Numbers" are
"Enterprise Numbers", or why there are 2 references for them.
Additional text seems needed to glue this together.
OS
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 6:28 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
<ssi...@cisco.com<mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Orie,
Thanks for review and your comment.
That statement was added based on comments received during draft WGLC (comment
#3 from Boris):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/h3LvVV7TBeHJjUWkwiUjDPek32Q/
Goal of that statement is just to add proper reference to registry with
Enterprise Numbers, because it was hard to find it and clarify which RFC is
describing them.
I'm fine with moving it into document body (proposed draft version attached).
Please let me know if such change will work for you. I can submit it then.
Thanks a lot,
Samuel
-----Original Message-----
From: Orie Steele via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 8:29 PM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc:
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>;
pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>;
d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>;
d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>
Subject: Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10:
(with COMMENT)
Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
```
5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions in this document, only a clarification.
[RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and
managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies
the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN) as described in the IANA
registry. The registration procedures and the registry location are
described by [RFC9371].
```
The only place where "Enterprise Numbers" occurs is:
```
The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message.
Multiple instances of the object MAY be contained in a single PCRpt
message. Different instances of the object MAY have different
Enterprise Numbers.
```
I am not sure what the purpose of the clarification in IANA Considerations is...
Is the goal to explain that Vendor information can include "Enterprise Numbers"
or "Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN)" as described in RFC2578 and RFC9371
respectively?
Or to restrict Vendor information to only "Enterprise Numbers" as described in
RFC2578?
In either case, it would probably be better to do this in the body of the
document and not as a comment in IANA Considerations.
--
ORIE STEELE
Chief Technology Officer
www.transmute.industries<http://www.transmute.industries>
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4xqtkj5psM1dDeDes_mjSsF3ylbEa5EMEQmnz3602cucAIhjLaHod-eVJq0E28BwrivrNSBMBc]<https://transmute.industries/>
--- Begin Message ---
Hi John,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 12:25 AM John Scudder via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for this well-written document. I have one point I'd like to
> discuss,
> and one other minor comment.
>
> ## DISCUSS
>
> The IANA Considerations section confused the heck out of me. The section
> in its
> entirety:
>
> There are no IANA actions in this document, only a clarification.
> [RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and
> managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies
> the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN) as described in the IANA
> registry. The registration procedures and the registry location are
> described by [RFC9371].
>
> I don't understand what the "clarification" is. While diving down this
> rabbit
> hole I took a look at RFC 2578, which this document and RFC 7470 both cite
> when
> mentioning the IANA registry... but 2578 does not establish such a
> registry nor
> even contain the string "Enterprise Number". (RFC 2578 predates the
> establishment of the IANA Considerations section.) I don't know why 7470
> cites
> RFC 2578 for the registry, but it appears wrong, and at a minimum, it
> seems to
> me this error shouldn't be propagated.
>
> I also don't know what you mean by the second sentence. As far as I can
> tell,
> the contribution of this document is to specify a new use for Enterprise
> Numbers, but there is no "clarification" involved and no need for any other
> user of the Enterprise Number to be aware of this use.
>
> It seems to me the document wouldn't suffer, and my confusion would be
> eliminated, by,
>
> NEW:
>
> There are no IANA actions in this document.
>
> If you feel the clarification is essential, could you please... clarify..
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
