> On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben, 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>> Sent: 29 August 2017 08:18
>> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> 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. 

I agree, it makes since to leave it as it was in the original.

> 
> Thanks! 
> 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

Reply via email to