Hi Samuel, Eric, On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 3:03 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Dhruv, Eric, > > > > “Authors - does this work for you?” > > > > That change makes sense to me as well. I’ll add contributors section and > I’ll include Dhruv there (Dhruv - sorry for adding you sooner, you are > really helping a lot with this draft). > > > Dhruv: You already do that! https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12.html#appendix-A :) Since it is in the appendix you might have slipped past it :) Thanks! Dhruv > I can include both changes in next version. > > > > Regards, > > Samuel > > > > *From:* Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2024 8:07 AM > *To:* Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > *Cc:* The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org; wassim.had...@ericsson.com > *Subject:* Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Dhruv, > > > > The proposed text (especially the 2nd paragraph) is clearer to me eyes. > > > > Thanks for your prompt reply > > > > -éric > > > > *From: *Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > *Date: *Thursday, 21 November 2024 at 07:46 > *To: *Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com> > *Cc: *The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org < > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>, pce-cha...@ietf.org < > pce-cha...@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>, > wassim.had...@ericsson.com <wassim.had...@ericsson.com> > *Subject: *Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Éric, > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:44 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's write-up including the WG > consensus and the justification of the intended status. > > > > Dhruv: 🙏 > > > > > > Other thanks to Wassim Haddad, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my > request), please consider this int-dir review: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-09-intdir-telechat-haddad-2024-10-22/ > (and I have read the email discussion with the authors) > > > > Dhruv: Authors made text changes to handle comments from Wassim. > > > > > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS (non-blocking) > > ## Lack of contributor section > > Based on > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-16&url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12&difftype=--html > > > > Dhruv: I passed on this work to my colleagues back in -06 version of the > individual draft. > > > > > > I find rather weird not to acknowledge Dhruv contributions rather than > simply > acknowledging Dhruv 'for their suggestions'. I find it a little short even > if > Dhruv is listed in appendix A 'contributor addresses'. > > As Dhruv is also the document shepherd, I will assume that Dhruv is OK > with the > situation. > > ## Section 1 > > As I am not a PCE expert, it took me three readings of the last two > paragraphs > of the introduction to understand what this I-D actually specifies. Unsure > how > to rewrite it though, perhaps explaining what is the need ? > > > > Dhruv: Do you find this slight rewrite of the last two paragraphs better? > > > > [RFC7470] defines the Vendor Information Object, which can carry > arbitrary, proprietary information, such as vendor-specific constraints, in > stateless PCEP. It also defines the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV, which allows > arbitrary information to be embedded within any existing or future PCEP > object that supports TLVs. > > > > While originally designed for stateless PCEP, the Vendor Information > Object and VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are also useful in the Stateful PCE > model. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be included in any of the stateful > PCEP objects as per [RFC7470] already. This document further extends > stateful PCEP messages to support the use of the Vendor Information Object. > > > > Happy to get further edits. > > > > Authors - does this work for you? > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv (as document shepherd) >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
