Hi Authors, It looks like there are at least a few outstanding comments to resolve before I send this to the RFC editor. For example, see below where Dhruv requests/suggests some small updates.
I haven’t comprehensively reviewed all the comments, so there may be more, please check. It’s always OK to propose not accepting a suggestion, but in that case please respond indicating that’s the resolution. Thanks, —John On Feb 20, 2025, at 3:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Éric, On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 5:38 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-11: 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/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Hw6GPY3FHXyYNPwTzn_SPluBFaTs9MaQKB5SBuhztOasUCNsiAwUmGCn16HFs1dK3d8LIzcEPgliwKPb$> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Hw6GPY3FHXyYNPwTzn_SPluBFaTs9MaQKB5SBuhztOasUCNsiAwUmGCn16HFs1dK3d8LIzcEPq4DmoAJ$> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done in this document. About 5.2. Information and Data Models, if there is already an applicable YANG data model, then please add a reference, else suggest removing this section. Dhruv: The section is part of a template that we follow as per RFC 6123. Maybe authors can add this sentence to add a reference - "To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG model [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended in the future."? Suggest using a normative reference to all the IANA registries used to clear any ambiguities, e.g., for "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" add a reference to https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#stateful-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*stateful-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Hw6GPY3FHXyYNPwTzn_SPluBFaTs9MaQKB5SBuhztOasUCNsiAwUmGCn16HFs1dK3d8LIzcEPscS8COZ$> Dhruv: This style is uncommon in PCE WG documents. Since the name of the registry and fact that it is under PCEP Numbers is mentioned, there should not be any ambiguity! Authors - please use the term registry and registry group instead of sub-registry. See https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Hw6GPY3FHXyYNPwTzn_SPluBFaTs9MaQKB5SBuhztOasUCNsiAwUmGCn16HFs1dK3d8LIzcEPtBU0jcr$> Thanks! Dhruv _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-le...@ietf.org> _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
