Re: [Pce] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Morning Komrade Claise,

Did you spot Appendix A?

A


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
> Sent: 30 August 2017 10:32
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Fred
> Baker
> Subject: [Pce] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03:
(with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - Where is the "diff from RFC6006" section?
> The following is not useful:
> 
>        This document obsoletes RFC 6006 and incorporates all outstanding
>        Errata:
> 
>        o Erratum with IDs: 3819, 3830, 3836, 4867, and 4868.
> 
> I found "Appendix A. Summary of the RBNF Changes from RFC 6006", as a good
> start, but it doesn't even appear in the table of content. Why?
> 
> - I've not been following the IPR situation (as described by Alvaro), but
would
> like to understand and it should be discussed during the telechat. Is it the
> case that https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1686/ (related to RFC6006) is
> updated by https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2983/ (related to RFC6006 and
> RFC6006bis)?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce