Hi Alvaro, Thanks for your comments, see inline...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana > Sent: 18 April 2016 21:33 > To: The IESG > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; pce- > [email protected] > Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro- > update-06: (with COMMENT) > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss- > criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-iro-update/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1. WG Consensus > > The Abstract talks about this document resulting from an "informal > survey". The Shepherd writeup also mentions the survey and how it was > "not unanimous". However, while the survey itself is mentioned in the > document (10 times in 6 pages!), there is no reference, and more > importantly nothing is mentioned about WG consensus. > > What I'm getting to here is the following: regardless of what the > survey says (or not), this document is on the Standards Track so I > expect the update to be the result of WG consensus. If the survey is > not even referenced (which is fine with me), then the document should > forget about it and simply point at the updates. In other words, the > survey, like discussion on the mailing list, seems to have been used as > a tool to reach consensus — no need to repeatedly mention the tool. > > I don't think this point raises to the level of a DISCUSS because it > should be an editorial change. Even though the archives don't provide > much in terms of discussion around this document (or draft-dhody-pce- > iro-survey), I have to assume that it reached this point because there > is in fact consensus on the update. > [Dhruv]: Reference to the survey document was removed in the last update (based on the AD review). I can reduce the number of times, survey is mentioned, but I do see value in mentioning it in the document. Anyways I will further discuss this point with our shepherd, chairs and AD. > 2. Non conforming implementations > > Section 3. (Other Considerations). Given that other interpretations of > rfc5440 were possible, I think that the considerations in this section > are operational, so renaming may be a good idea. I would expect that > because this is a Standards Track document that people will eventually > conform to it, so I think that the "RECOMMEND" at the bottom is not > needed. [I think that's the only rfc2119 key word.] > [Dhruv]: Will rename the section to "Operational Considerations". What would be a better wording to suggest not to have a mix deployment because of the issue mentioned in the section? > > 3. Section 2.1. (Update to RFC 5440): > > a. Where should the new statements be added? I'm assuming after the > first paragraph. [Dhruv]: Yes, I can add text! > > B. "An abstract node could be a simple abstract node…" Is there a > better way to define "abstract node" than by using it in the > definition? Maybe just point to rfc3209. [Dhruv]: Ok. Thanks for your review. Regards, Dhruv > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
