Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10: 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-stateful-pce-vendor/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ``` 5. IANA Considerations 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. The registration procedures and the registry location are described by [RFC9371]. ``` The only place where "Enterprise Numbers" occurs is: ``` The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message. Multiple instances of the object MAY be contained in a single PCRpt message. Different instances of the object MAY have different Enterprise Numbers. ``` I am not sure what the purpose of the clarification in IANA Considerations is... Is the goal to explain that Vendor information can include "Enterprise Numbers" or "Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN)" as described in RFC2578 and RFC9371 respectively? Or to restrict Vendor information to only "Enterprise Numbers" as described in RFC2578? In either case, it would probably be better to do this in the body of the document and not as a comment in IANA Considerations. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
