Hi Mahesh, On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 1:24 AM Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Mahesh Jethanandani 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support John's DISCUSS on the document. > > Dhruv: I have responded to John and hopefully we can come to a resolution. > I also noticed that Shephard review was done more than 2 years ago, but the > document has gone through several updates since then. Does it need a > refresh? > > Dhruv: As I mentioned in another thread, there is a confusion between the date of the last update to shepherd write up (2024-08-28) and the date of shepherd write up template (2022). > Section 4, paragraph 0 > > All manageability requirements and considerations listed in > > [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to PCEP protocol > > extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements > > and considerations listed in this section apply. > > It is good to see a separate manageability consideration section in the > document. > > Section 4.2, paragraph 1 > > The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. Any > > standard YANG module will not include details of vendor-specific > > information. > > If what is being added is a vendor-info-list and a TLV, can that not be > modeled > in a standard way? I understand the content is vendor-specific, but how is > the > format of vendor-info-list and TLV vendor-specific? > > > Dhruv: I see Samuel has already responded. I suggest this modification - The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. Any standard YANG module will not include details of detailed information about the content of the Vendor Information object or TLV. However, the standard YANG module could be extended to report the use of the Vendor Information object or TLV and the Enterprise Numbers that the objects and TLVs contain. Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
