The change is perfect. Thank you Samuel. mike
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 9:56 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Thanks a lot for your review and for comment/suggestion raised. I agree > that it is cleaner to move IANA related statement to IANA Considerations > section, so I moved it and modified a bit (I would still prefer to keep > reference to RFC9371 as that contains direct location to PEN registry. > > Can you please check if it is addressing your comment? I can submit it > then. > > Regards, > Samuel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike McBride via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 12:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05 > > Reviewer: Mike McBride > Review result: Ready > > Succinct and well written draft. It's ready. My only suggestion is adding > a little more into the iana considerations section. Something like: > > "There are no IANA actions in this document, only a clarification. > [RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed > through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private > Enterprise Numbers > (PEN) as described in the IANA registry." > > And/or re-word the iana description up in section 3. That second sentence > "This document further clarifies that what the IANA registry described is > the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN), in which registrations and the > registration location are further described by [RFC9371]." is awkward to > me. Would this say the same > thing?: > > "This document clarifies the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN), as > described in the IANA registry. The registrations, and the registration > location, are further described by [RFC9371]." > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
