MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <172410519821.1939439.15363652192017962790@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
 <IA0PR11MB77928067A480E8D7A3FFDF8BD08B2@IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <IA0PR11MB77928067A480E8D7A3FFDF8BD08B2@IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 23:52:55 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAL3FGfwpJum1D216vfiwkxBAjfoi6Sf-8XDACQo9u7sK7YenjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" <ssidor@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b56e00620cced98"
Message-ID-Hash: MCQEETPBVHZ7ZQSI2SCC327VF6LVKJK7
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.all@ietf.org"
 <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.all@ietf.org>,
 "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BPce=5D_Re=3A_Rtgdir_early_review_of_draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce?=
	=?utf-8?q?-vendor-05?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/jZ2N4g0E9t_wkSV0Q31ebdyeyfo>

--0000000000004b56e00620cced98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The change is perfect. Thank you Samuel.

mike

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 9:56=E2=80=AFAM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor@cisco=
.com>
wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks a lot for your review and for comment/suggestion raised. I agree
> that it is cleaner to move IANA related statement to IANA Considerations
> section, so I moved it and modified a bit (I would still prefer to keep
> reference to RFC9371 as that contains direct location to PEN registry.
>
> Can you please check if it is addressing your comment? I can submit it
> then.
>
> Regards,
> Samuel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike McBride via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 12:07 AM
> To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05
>
> Reviewer: Mike McBride
> Review result: Ready
>
> Succinct and well written draft. It's ready. My only suggestion is adding
> a little more into the iana considerations section. Something like:
>
> "There are no IANA actions in this document, only a clarification.
> [RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed
> through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private
> Enterprise Numbers
> (PEN) as described in the IANA registry."
>
> And/or re-word the iana description up in section 3. That second sentence
> "This document further clarifies that what the IANA registry described is
> the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN), in which registrations and the
> registration location are further described by [RFC9371]." is awkward to
> me. Would this say the same
> thing?:
>
> "This document clarifies the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN), as
> described in the IANA registry. The registrations, and the registration
> location, are further described by [RFC9371]."
>
>
>
>

--0000000000004b56e00620cced98
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The change is perfect. Thank you Samuel.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>mike</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" clas=
s=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 9:56=E2=80=AFAM Samuel Sidor (ssid=
or) &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ssidor@cisco.com">ssidor@cisco.com</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8=
ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
Thanks a lot for your review and for comment/suggestion raised. I agree tha=
t it is cleaner to move IANA related statement to IANA Considerations secti=
on, so I moved it and modified a bit (I would still prefer to keep referenc=
e to RFC9371 as that contains direct location to PEN registry.<br>
<br>
Can you please check if it is addressing your comment? I can submit it then=
.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Samuel<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Mike McBride via Datatracker &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:noreply@ietf.org" =
target=3D"_blank">noreply@ietf.org</a>&gt; <br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 12:07 AM<br>
To: <a href=3D"mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">rtg-dir@ietf.org<=
/a><br>
Cc: <a href=3D"mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.all@ietf.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.all@ietf.org</a>; <a href=
=3D"mailto:pce@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">pce@ietf.org</a><br>
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05<br>
<br>
Reviewer: Mike McBride<br>
Review result: Ready<br>
<br>
Succinct and well written draft. It&#39;s ready. My only suggestion is addi=
ng a little more into the iana considerations section. Something like:<br>
<br>
&quot;There are no IANA actions in this document, only a clarification. [RF=
C7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed through=
 an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private Enterprise=
 Numbers<br>
(PEN) as described in the IANA registry.&quot;<br>
<br>
And/or re-word the iana description up in section 3. That second sentence &=
quot;This document further clarifies that what the IANA registry described =
is the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN), in which registrations and the reg=
istration location are further described by [RFC9371].&quot; is awkward to =
me. Would this say the same<br>
thing?:<br>
<br>
&quot;This document clarifies the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN), as desc=
ribed in the IANA registry. The registrations, and the registration locatio=
n, are further described by [RFC9371].&quot;<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000004b56e00620cced98--