> On Jan 2, 2024, at 08:58, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > > Hi Èric, > > Happy 2024! > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:03 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It was an easy and simple read > for my first document review in 2024! > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Andrew Stone for the shepherd's detailed write-up including > the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS (non-blocking) > > ## Section 1 > > Is it a `Editor's Note:` or a "Note to the IESG" or a "Note to the RFC > Editor" ? > > Dhruv: It was an Editor's note while we were working on the I-D. At this > stage perhaps we can just remove the note now and stick it out with the fate > of RFC8446bis (which is in the post-WGLC stage). Sean and Russ should chime > in if they disagree :)
I was a note to everybody ;) Well technically the audience changed as we marched through the process. It can safely be deleted post IESG comments: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/18 > ## Section 3 > > `MUST prefer to negotiate the latest version` is of course the preferred > behavior for the initiator, but should the document clearly specify that the > responser "MUST select the latest version" ? (please bear with me as English > is > not my primary language). > > Dhruv: FWIW I see the phrase usage in RFC 9325 as well as in the netconf tls > 1.3 I-D which was in a recent IESG telechat! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Yes it’s in 9325 and negotiate is a two way thing. > ## Section 6 > > I wonder about the usefulness of an implementation section having `there are > no > known implementations of this mechanism.` > > Dhruv: PCE WG set out an Implementation Section Policy listed at > https://wiki.ietf.org/group/pce/ImplementationPolicy > We wanted the WG and the IETF community to be aware of known implementations > (or lack thereof) at the time of approval, at publication the section is > anyway removed. Yep will remove this when we get to the RFC editor queue. Cheers, spt _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
