Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro, 

Thanks for your comments, see inline... 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
> Sent: 18 April 2016 21:33
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-iro-update@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-
> chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-
> update-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: 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-iro-update/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. WG Consensus
> 
> The Abstract talks about this document resulting from an "informal
> survey".  The Shepherd writeup also mentions the survey and how it was
> "not unanimous".  However, while the survey itself is mentioned in the
> document (10 times in 6 pages!), there is no reference, and more
> importantly nothing is mentioned about WG consensus.
> 
> What I'm getting to here is the following:  regardless of what the
> survey says (or not), this document is on the Standards Track so I
> expect the update to be the result of WG consensus.  If the survey is
> not even referenced (which is fine with me), then the document should
> forget about it and simply point at the updates.  In other words, the
> survey, like discussion on the mailing list, seems to have been used as
> a tool to reach consensus — no need to repeatedly mention the tool.
> 
> I don't think this point raises to the level of a DISCUSS because it
> should be an editorial change.  Even though the archives don't provide
> much in terms of discussion around this document (or draft-dhody-pce-
> iro-survey), I have to assume that it reached this point because there
> is in fact consensus on the update.
> 

[Dhruv]: Reference to the survey document was removed in the last update (based on the AD review). I can reduce the number of times, survey is mentioned, but I do see value in mentioning it in the document. Anyways I will further discuss this point with our shepherd, chairs and AD.   

> 2. Non conforming implementations
> 
> Section 3. (Other Considerations).  Given that other interpretations of
> rfc5440 were possible, I think that the considerations in this section
> are operational, so renaming may be a good idea.  I would expect that
> because this is a Standards Track document that people will eventually
> conform to it, so I think that the "RECOMMEND" at the bottom is not
> needed.  [I think that's the only rfc2119 key word.]
> 

[Dhruv]: Will rename the section to "Operational Considerations". 
What would be a better wording to suggest not to have a mix deployment because of the issue mentioned in the section? 

> 
> 3. Section 2.1. (Update to RFC 5440):
> 
> a. Where should the new statements be added?  I'm assuming after the
> first paragraph.

[Dhruv]: Yes, I can add text! 

> 
> B. "An abstract node could be a simple abstract node…"  Is there a
> better way to define "abstract node" than by using it in the
> definition?  Maybe just point to rfc3209.

[Dhruv]: Ok.

Thanks for your review. 

Regards,
Dhruv

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