From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Roman Danyliw'" <rdd@cert.org>,
	"'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
References: 
 <172433930732.2565745.5922745396234290818@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
In-Reply-To: 
 <172433930732.2565745.5922745396234290818@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:32:01 +0800
Message-ID: <008601daf52e$8bca90a0$a35fb1e0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQHwBwquTDIHjWcQv1XAUH16UUsCarIKTgEg
Content-Language: zh-cn
Message-ID-Hash: L2PVIXQ5KZAIOIMBU3JRXLRNTHZ53NU4
CC: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org,
 pce@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BPce=5D_=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D=3A_Roman_Danyliw=27s_Discuss_on_draft?=
	=?utf-8?q?-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMM?=
	=?utf-8?q?ENT=29?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/PvTm9MkUemGxyi7RnFYXwsGC6yc>

Hi, Roman:

Thanks for your suggestions.
I have updated the "SHOULD" in these sections to "MUST", to eliminate =
the ambiguity.
I have parsed all the content of this document and update "SHOULD" with =
"MUST" selectively according to their necessity.
The updated draft will be uploaded soon to reflect the above changes.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom




-----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6-----
=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org =
[mailto:forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1=A8 Roman Danyliw =
via Datatracker
=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2024=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5 =
23:08
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; =
pce-chairs@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on =
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: Discuss

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-positio=
ns/
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-pcep-extension-native-ip/=




----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In -35 a number of changes to the IANA considerations were introduced.=20
Specifically, various "shoulds" were replaced with "SHOULDs".  This has =
created
ambiguity in the following:

-- Section 13.4,
   The reference for the new Error-type/value SHOULD be set to this
   document.

-- Section 13.5
   Each bit SHOULD be tracked with the following qualities:

-- Section 13.6
   Each
   value SHOULD be tracked with the following qualities: value, meaning,
   and defining RFC.

-- Section 13.7
   Each value SHOULD
   be tracked with the following qualities:

-- Section 13.8
   Each bit
   SHOULD be tracked with the following qualities:

What isn't clear when IANA would choose not to track these qualities or =
set the
values.  Why create this ambiguity?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Mallory Knodel for the GENART review.

Thank for addressing my COMMENT feedback and initial DISCUSS position.



_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-leave@ietf.org