Hi Éric, On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:44 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Éric Vyncke 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated even if only for my own education). > > Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's write-up including the WG > consensus and the justification of the intended status. > > Dhruv: 🙏 > Other thanks to Wassim Haddad, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my > request), please consider this int-dir review: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-09-intdir-telechat-haddad-2024-10-22/ > (and I have read the email discussion with the authors) > > Dhruv: Authors made text changes to handle comments from Wassim. > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # COMMENTS (non-blocking) > > ## Lack of contributor section > > Based on > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-16&url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12&difftype=--html > Dhruv: I passed on this work to my colleagues back in -06 version of the individual draft. > I find rather weird not to acknowledge Dhruv contributions rather than > simply > acknowledging Dhruv 'for their suggestions'. I find it a little short even > if > Dhruv is listed in appendix A 'contributor addresses'. > > As Dhruv is also the document shepherd, I will assume that Dhruv is OK > with the > situation. > > ## Section 1 > > As I am not a PCE expert, it took me three readings of the last two > paragraphs > of the introduction to understand what this I-D actually specifies. Unsure > how > to rewrite it though, perhaps explaining what is the need ? > > > Dhruv: Do you find this slight rewrite of the last two paragraphs better? [RFC7470] defines the Vendor Information Object, which can carry arbitrary, proprietary information, such as vendor-specific constraints, in stateless PCEP. It also defines the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV, which allows arbitrary information to be embedded within any existing or future PCEP object that supports TLVs. While originally designed for stateless PCEP, the Vendor Information Object and VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are also useful in the Stateful PCE model. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be included in any of the stateful PCEP objects as per [RFC7470] already. This document further extends stateful PCEP messages to support the use of the Vendor Information Object. Happy to get further edits. Authors - does this work for you? Thanks! Dhruv (as document shepherd)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
