Hi, Mahend, and thanks for the response and for addressing my comments. > For this one comment -> > === > — Section 4.5 — > > When the protection type is set to 1+1 or 1:N with N=1, there MUST be > … > When the protection type is set to 1:N with N>1, there MUST be > > This is a style thing, so take it or leave it as you please — it’s not wrong > the way it’s written. It’s just that the “1:N with N=1” and “1:N with N>1” > distinction isn’t necessary, and I think it’s distracting and invites > uncertainty. If you just made these like this: > > NEW > When the protection type is set to 1+1, there MUST be > … > When the protection type is set to 1:N, there MUST be > END > > …it would be equally correct, but also simpler and, I think, less likely to be > confusing. > === > > The first sentence is for the case 1+1 and 1:1. Since RFC 4872 does > not define an explicit state 1:1, it define 1:N only this wording was > chosen. I have made this change "When the protection type is set to > 1+1 or 1:1 (1:N with N=1)...".
I understand what the text says, but my comment is about why you are calling out "1:N with N=1" separately. What benefit does that have for the text? The regular "1:N" text works perfectly whether N=1 or N>1, so why not just let that text serve for all cases of N? Is there a benefit that I'm not seeing to having N=1 as a separate case? Barry _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
