The bolded text works for me. OS
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:18 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> wrote: > Thanks Orie, > > > > What about expanding that statement to (bold part added): > > > > [RFC7470 <#m_-1556929465033481187_RFC7470>] defines the Enterprise > Numbers allocated by IANA and managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578 > <#m_-1556929465033481187_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 > <#m_-1556929465033481187_RFC7470>]*. The registration procedures and the > registry location are described by [RFC9371 > <#m_-1556929465033481187_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> > 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> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 8:29 PM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; 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 > > <https://transmute.industries/> > -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
