Hi John,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 12:25 AM John Scudder via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10: Discuss > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for this well-written document. I have one point I'd like to > discuss, > and one other minor comment. > > ## DISCUSS > > The IANA Considerations section confused the heck out of me. The section > in its > entirety: > > 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]. > > I don't understand what the "clarification" is. While diving down this > rabbit > hole I took a look at RFC 2578, which this document and RFC 7470 both cite > when > mentioning the IANA registry... but 2578 does not establish such a > registry nor > even contain the string "Enterprise Number". (RFC 2578 predates the > establishment of the IANA Considerations section.) I don't know why 7470 > cites > RFC 2578 for the registry, but it appears wrong, and at a minimum, it > seems to > me this error shouldn't be propagated. > > I also don't know what you mean by the second sentence. As far as I can > tell, > the contribution of this document is to specify a new use for Enterprise > Numbers, but there is no "clarification" involved and no need for any other > user of the Enterprise Number to be aware of this use. > > It seems to me the document wouldn't suffer, and my confusion would be > eliminated, by, > > NEW: > > There are no IANA actions in this document. > > If you feel the clarification is essential, could you please... clarify... > for > me, what you are trying to accomplish? > > Dhruv: Orie made the same comment and Samuel proposed an update - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/lZnXHCqLch5awrfNzp0uoAX-nnY/ They are trying to work out a clarification text. Before RFC 9371, I saw many RFCs have a similar text which used to refer to RFC 2578 as that was the origin of the concept of "Enterprise Number". Even RFC 9371 list a few examples - A very common use of PENs is to give unique identifiers in IETF protocols. SNMP MIB configuration files use PENs for identifying the origin of values. Protocols that use PENs as identifiers of extension mechanisms include RADIUS [RFC2865 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9371.html#RFC2865>], Diameter [RFC6733 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9371.html#RFC6733>], Syslog [RFC5424 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9371.html#RFC5424>], RSVP [RFC5284 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9371.html#RFC5284>], and vCard [RFC6350 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9371.html#RFC6350>]. The options are - (1) This I-D formally updates RFC 7470 and changes the reference from RFC 2578 to RFC 9371. (2) A clarification text that says that the "enterprise number" registry is the one pointed to and claried in RFC 9371. (3) Remove any mention of it! Since RFC 9371 did not trigger or suggest updating older RFCs, I was leaning towards (2). Happy to discuss :) Thanks! Dhruv (just the document shepherd) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ## COMMENT > > ### Section 2 redundant paragraph > > The message formats in this document are specified using Routing > Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) encoding as specified in [RFC5511]. > > This is redundant with Section 1.2, just a few paragraphs above. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
