Pavan (and Dhruv), Thanks for your reply and the change in -12.
As a side note about “less continue what PCE did in other docs”, this would prevent evolution though ;-) But, this is a detail Regards -éric From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupa...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, 27 February 2025 at 08:47 To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org>, pce-cha...@ietf.org <pce-cha...@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>, andrew.st...@nokia.com <andrew.st...@nokia.com> Subject: Re: [Pce] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-11: (with COMMENT) 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<mailto: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/ 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<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<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
