> On Jan 2, 2024, at 08:58, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi Èric,
>
> Happy 2024!
>
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:03 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
> wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: 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-pceps-tls13/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document. It was an easy and simple read
> for my first document review in 2024!
>
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education).
>
> Special thanks to Andrew Stone for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
> the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.
>
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> # COMMENTS (non-blocking)
>
> ## Section 1
>
> Is it a `Editor's Note:` or a "Note to the IESG" or a "Note to the RFC
> Editor" ?
>
> Dhruv: It was an Editor's note while we were working on the I-D. At this
> stage perhaps we can just remove the note now and stick it out with the fate
> of RFC8446bis (which is in the post-WGLC stage). Sean and Russ should chime
> in if they disagree :)
I was a note to everybody ;) Well technically the audience changed as we
marched through the process. It can safely be deleted post IESG comments:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/18
> ## Section 3
>
> `MUST prefer to negotiate the latest version` is of course the preferred
> behavior for the initiator, but should the document clearly specify that the
> responser "MUST select the latest version" ? (please bear with me as English
> is
> not my primary language).
>
> Dhruv: FWIW I see the phrase usage in RFC 9325 as well as in the netconf tls
> 1.3 I-D which was in a recent IESG telechat! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes it’s in 9325 and negotiate is a two way thing.
> ## Section 6
>
> I wonder about the usefulness of an implementation section having `there are
> no
> known implementations of this mechanism.`
>
> Dhruv: PCE WG set out an Implementation Section Policy listed at
> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/pce/ImplementationPolicy
> We wanted the WG and the IETF community to be aware of known implementations
> (or lack thereof) at the time of approval, at publication the section is
> anyway removed.
Yep will remove this when we get to the RFC editor queue.
Cheers,
spt
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce