Hi Julien and PCE WG,
I support progress of this document.
3 minor (non-blocking) comments:
1. Do we need to expand "PCEP" in document title? (It seems to be expanded in
most of PCEP RFCs)
2. In section 3.1, shouldn't we use normative SHOULD/MUST when specifying what
an "experiment" should/will do? (I understand that the whole section is even
called as "Advice ...", so it seems that it is not really specifying
requirements. However, in reality, it seems to be defining required behavior
for anyone using experimental error types/values.
3. Just a note: If I haven't missed anything, American English is used in most
of PCEP drafts. I can see a few words from British English ("recognise",
"synchronised",..) in this draft. That should be fine as long as we are not
mixing American and British English in a single document (I don't see a
specific example of some a word that would be specific to American English. I'm
just raising this because there is a chance that could happen during merge of 2
drafts into current one).
Thanks a lot,
Samuel
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 2:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana-update
Hi all,
Since we have consensus, let's move forward with this simple fix to [1], as
agreed with the IESG. This message starts a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-01 [2]. Please share your support or comments on the
PCE mailing list by Friday September 20.
Thank you,
Julien
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C519
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-01
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
