Hi Ben, > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell > Sent: 29 August 2017 08:18 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: > (with COMMENT) > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: 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-rfc6006bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Is section 2 expected to be of more than background interest to an > implementer? > If not, I suggest moving it to an appendix, or at least towards the back > of the document. > [[Dhruv Dhody]] This is as per the earlier published RFC. This section has not changed in the bis document. Including a requirement section was quite usual in the PCEP RFCs published earlier, I know that in the recent times this is discouraged.
In the case of bis document, there is some value in keeping the spirit and order of the original RFC, so that a clear comparison with the to-be-obsolute-RFC is possible. Do you agree, if not I can move as suggested. Thanks! Dhruv > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
