[Pce] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aijun,

In the -34 thread Dhruv and I suggested reverting the MUSTs to normal language words and not RFC 2119 keywords. For what it's worth, I think the reversion would still be responsive to Roman’s DISCUSS (and would be less likely to cause any further concerns). Perhaps Roman can confirm, though.

Thanks,

—John

On Aug 23, 2024, at 3:32 AM, Aijun Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:

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




-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
发送时间: 2024年8月22日 23:08
收件人: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: [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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CX2sWehXHk4T8lmM7DZNJvYJRnvrEXX7Kx6CbS81SYQ5FN5WisHwtxTqLl1vGwe_olGor4R04BZ6UUwIBGPrag$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CX2sWehXHk4T8lmM7DZNJvYJRnvrEXX7Kx6CbS81SYQ5FN5WisHwtxTqLl1vGwe_olGor4R04BZ6UUz4NKn4ww$



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In -35 a number of changes to the IANA considerations were introduced.
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 -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>