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

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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-positions/ 
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. 
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.