Eric, Thanks for the review. Dhruv, Thanks for chiming in.
Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB). Regards, -Pavan On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 12:58 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> 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/ >> 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/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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."? > [VPB] We added the following sentence (with relevant references) in the latest version ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color/12/). The YANG model in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] could be used to retrieve the operational state of a TE tunnel, and the YANG model in [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] could be used to retrieve the operational state of an SR policy. > > >> 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 >> >> >> > 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 > [VPB] We tried to keep the style consistent with other PCE WG documents. In ver-12, we removed the use of "sub-registry" (and used "registry group" in relevant places). > Thanks! > Dhruv > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
