Looks good to me, thanks! Paul
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 5:39 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > New version submitted. > > > > It is adding “update” of RFC7470 and addressing comments from a few other > mail threads. Please let me know if I missed anything. > > > > Thanks, > > Samuel > > > > *From:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2024 3:50 PM > *To:* adr...@olddog.co.uk; Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; Cheng Li <c.l= > 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc:* Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > Do you still think that “update” of RFC7470 is not good solution or we > have consensus to proceed with that option? Only alternative solution > proposed in the mail thread seems to be Errata, but my understanding is > that Dhruv explained that even that is not meant to be used for case like > this. > > > > If that works for you, then I can submit version proposed in this mail > thread (updating RFC7470) and include proposed changes from 2 other mail > threads related to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor. > > > > Thanks a lot, > > Samuel > > > > *From:* Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2024 3:36 PM > *To:* Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; adr...@olddog.co.uk > *Cc:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>; Paul Wouters < > paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Well. If the PEN is the right term, then we should use PEN in this > document. > > > > A ‘update’ seems the shortest path to address this, and IMHO, updating a > term definition may not require to implement all the features defined in > that document. Please educate me if I am wrong. > > > > But if this is not working, then we might say: We are using PEN in this > document, the one mentioned in RFC9371. The EN defined in RFC7470 might > need some update by a errata) . In this way, we make this update as an > independent action of RFC7470. > > > > To me, it is not a big problem, let ADs decide what we should go. As one > of the author, I am ok with both directions. > > > > Thanks, > > Cheng > > > > > > *From:* Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:04 PM > *To:* adr...@olddog.co.uk > *Cc:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Paul > Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 5:14 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification, Dhruv. > > > > Like I said, I don’t much mind. > > > > But, this is not the correct way to fix a debatable citation in another > RFC. > > That should be done with an editorial erratum. > > > > Dhruv: Hmmm, but we do say that Errata are meant to fix errors at the time > the document was published [1], which is not the case here as RFC 9371 did > not exist back then! > > > > > > This use of “updates” leaves the implementer of 7470 trying to work out > whether they have to pick up any technical changes from the new I-D. > > Or will the Abstract of the next revision include the text… > > This document updates RFC 7470 by clarifying a reference. > > …and the Introduction… > > This document updates RFC 7470 by clarifying the reference for the > > definition and management of Private Enterprise Numbers. It does > > not make any technical changes to the procedures or encodings > > defined in RFC 7470. > > > > > > Dhruv: Samuel proposed this text in the abstract in the attachment. > > > This document updates RFC 7470 to revise the reference to the IANA > registry for managing Enterprise Numbers. > > > > > > BTW, if a new “Updates” clause is added, doesn’t the document need to go > for IETF last call again (because the first last call failed to call this > out)? > > > > > > Dhruv: I thought that was done only for DownRef. I vaguely remember > "discuss" about changing the metadata during IESG discussions and not > repeating LC? Anyways, we can let the responsible AD do the right thing :) > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/ > > > > > > *From:* Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > *Sent:* 20 November 2024 11:28 > *To:* adr...@olddog.co.uk > *Cc:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Paul > Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:36 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm one of the authors of 7470. > > I don't mind much about the outcome of this discussion, but the definition > of "Updates" *still* remains occluded ☹ [1] > > 7322 no longer provides a definition, and the old definition in 2223 was, > I think, confusing. > > IMHO, "B updates A" means that to achieve an implementation of A, one > should also implement B. > > It does not mean "B builds on A" (else, pretty much any Internet protocol > work would be an update to RFC 791. > > In the case of this draft, a new feature is being added to PCEP. In order > to implement this document, you need to implement at least parts of 7470. > But anyone implementing 7470 can just go ahead without any changes. > > > > Dhruv: But in this case we are proposing to use "updates" because we want > to update a sentence in RFC 7470. > > This is the proposed text change in Samuel's attachment - > > > [RFC7470] stated that: > > > "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an > IANA registry [RFC2578]". > > This document updates [RFC7470] and replaces this text with: > > "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through the > "Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry as described in > [RFC9371]." > > > > > > > > Cheers, > Adrian > > [1] Any IESG wishing to clarify this through a statement would be greatly > helping the community and reducing the recurrence of this discussion. > > > > Dhruv: I hope RSWG picks up > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/ > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: 20 November 2024 10:38 > To: Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; > pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Paul, > > There was already discussion whether update of RFC7470 should be done or > not - there was not strong opinion against, but also no strong opinion for > doing it, but it is finally probably better to do it. > > Attaching updated version. Please let me know if it is satisfying your > comment. > > Thanks, > Samuel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:13 AM > 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: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > Paul Wouters 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [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] > > Does this mean this document Updates: 7470 ? Because it currently does not. > > The use of "clarifies" versus "updates" here seems uhm convenient :) > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
