Re: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Mahend, and thanks for the response and for addressing my comments.

> For this one comment ->
> ===
> — Section 4.5 —
>
>    When the protection type is set to 1+1 or 1:N with N=1, there MUST be
> …
>    When the protection type is set to 1:N with N>1, there MUST be
>
> This is a style thing, so take it or leave it as you please — it’s not wrong
> the way it’s written.  It’s just that the “1:N with N=1” and “1:N with N>1”
> distinction isn’t necessary, and I think it’s distracting and invites
> uncertainty.  If you just made these like this:
>
> NEW
>    When the protection type is set to 1+1, there MUST be
> …
>    When the protection type is set to 1:N, there MUST be
> END
>
> …it would be equally correct, but also simpler and, I think, less likely to be
> confusing.
> ===
>
> The first sentence is for the case 1+1 and 1:1. Since RFC 4872 does
> not define an explicit state 1:1, it define 1:N only this wording was
> chosen. I have made this change "When the protection type is set to
> 1+1 or 1:1 (1:N with N=1)...".

I understand what the text says, but my comment is about why you are
calling out "1:N with N=1" separately.  What benefit does that have
for the text?  The regular "1:N" text works perfectly whether N=1 or
N>1, so why not just let that text serve for all cases of N?  Is there
a benefit that I'm not seeing to having N=1 as a separate case?

Barry