Hi Adrian, On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:36 PM Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I'm one of the authors of 7470. > > I don't mind much about the outcome of this discussion, but the definition > of "Updates" *still* remains occluded ☹ [1] > > 7322 no longer provides a definition, and the old definition in 2223 was, > I think, confusing. > > IMHO, "B updates A" means that to achieve an implementation of A, one > should also implement B. > > It does not mean "B builds on A" (else, pretty much any Internet protocol > work would be an update to RFC 791. > > In the case of this draft, a new feature is being added to PCEP. In order > to implement this document, you need to implement at least parts of 7470. > But anyone implementing 7470 can just go ahead without any changes. > > Dhruv: But in this case we are proposing to use "updates" because we want to update a sentence in RFC 7470. This is the proposed text change in Samuel's attachment - [RFC7470] stated that: "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578]". This document updates [RFC7470] and replaces this text with: "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through the "Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry as described in [RFC9371]." Cheers, > Adrian > > [1] Any IESG wishing to clarify this through a statement would be greatly > helping the community and reducing the recurrence of this discussion. > Dhruv: I hope RSWG picks up https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/ Thanks! Dhruv > > -----Original Message----- > From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> > Sent: 20 November 2024 10:38 > To: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Paul, > > There was already discussion whether update of RFC7470 should be done or > not - there was not strong opinion against, but also no strong opinion for > doing it, but it is finally probably better to do it. > > Attaching updated version. Please let me know if it is satisfying your > comment. > > Thanks, > Samuel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:13 AM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT) > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [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 are same > thing as Enterprise Numbers referred in this document and [RFC7470] > > Does this mean this document Updates: 7470 ? Because it currently does not. > > The use of "clarifies" versus "updates" here seems uhm convenient :) > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
