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

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272171321AE; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8nh6VSkSw-sN; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7E0413218F; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNQ54741; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:32:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.47) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:32:26 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML408-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.47]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:02:13 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTIHFKw5k1wmuw8kuC3zxFE/yo7aKd7+vg
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:32:12 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD618@blreml501-mbx>
References: <150397488548.13263.5782301568612117726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150397488548.13263.5782301568612117726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.59A7AD7B.00C4, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 244ca1acc6783bb97b471a94eca952e8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Mp_a38OOLcNdsUmhQLlZdxayZ8M>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:32:31 -0000

Hi Ben, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
> Sent: 29 August 2017 08:18
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Ben Campbell 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Is section 2 expected to be of more than background interest to an
> implementer?
> If not, I suggest moving it to an appendix, or at least towards the back
> of the document.
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] This is as per the earlier published RFC. This section has not changed in the bis document. 
Including a requirement section was quite usual in the PCEP RFCs published earlier, I know that in the recent times this is discouraged. 

In the case of bis document, there is some value in keeping the spirit and order of the original RFC, so that a clear comparison with the to-be-obsolute-RFC is possible. 
Do you agree, if not I can move as suggested. 

Thanks! 
Dhruv

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce