Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha

["Haleplidis Evangelos" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you very much for the review.

> Section 5 needs to give clear and unambiguous instructions to the IANA.
> It seems that the text in Section 5 is currently a placeholder for the
correct text.

Looking on the IANA considerations I am not exactly sure how to address the
issue.

In my mind there are two possibilities.

1. Update the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class
Identifiers" https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml by adding
one more column "LFB Version" after (or before) the LFB Class Name. Value of
1.0 for all existing LFBs and then add a new row for Version 1.1 after the
FE Protocol Object for version 1.1. 

2. Update the FEPO reference with [RFC5810] v1.0, [CEHA RFC] v.1.1.

I'm more inclined to go for the first one but that would require
restructuring of the IANA page. 
What should be the proper way forward?

> Section 3.1.1
>
> "CEID" is used without expansion. Although sometimes I find "CE ID" for
example in 3.1.2.

The CEID refers to a component in the FE Protocol Object. The CE ID refers
to the ID of the CE. There were a few discrepancies but have been fixed. The
CEID is now followed by the word "component" while the CE ID is not. Will
that be sufficient to remove the confusion?

The rest of the comments have been applied to the new version that will be
submitted as soon as we decide on the IANA considerations.

Regards,
Evangelos Haleplidis.