Hi Dhruv, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
Thanks!
Ben.
On 13 Sep 2016, at 7:30, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
[...]
\>
A few minor, mostly editorial comments:
- Abstract: The abstract seems unnecessarily long. The point is to
describe
very briefly what the document is about. The more “motivating”
text could be left to the intro.
[Dhruv] I understand, but we did want to keep the look and feel of
this document in line with the sister RFCs - RFC7471, RFC7810 as much
as possible. Is it acceptable to you, if we keep the abstract as it
is?
Sure, this was not a show stopper.
-3: Will this section have value to readers of the RFC, once the RFC
is
published?
[Dhruv] This section was written in a spirit that historically PCE WG
has published requirement RFCs and text exist about the key
requirements for the PCEP extensions along with the extension itself.
If you feel strongly about this, perhaps I can move it to appendix?
I do not feel strongly. Again, not a show stopper.
- General: A lot (if not most) of the instances of “MAY” would
better serve
as “can”. They seem to be saying that it is possible for an
element to do
something, rather than offering permission to do that thing.
[Dhruv] I have gone through all instance of "MAY" and converted some
of them to "can". I have kept the use of "MAY" when talking in terms
of inclusion of object inside a PCEP message. I hope you are satisfied
by this. I can discuss this with RFC editor during the editing stage
too.
I was mainly thinking about the MAYs in sentence of the form, "A PCE/PCC
MAY use XXX to do YYY". From a quick scan of the diff, it looks like you
did the right thing.
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
