[Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: 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/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-pceps-tls13/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05

Thank you for the work put into this document. It was an easy and simple read
for my first document review in 2024!

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Andrew Stone for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 1

Is it a `Editor's Note:` or a "Note to the IESG" or a "Note to the RFC Editor" ?

## Section 3

`MUST prefer to negotiate the latest version` is of course the preferred
behavior for the initiator, but should the document clearly specify that the
responser "MUST select the latest version" ? (please bear with me as English is
not my primary language).

## Section 6

I wonder about the usefulness of an implementation section having `there are no
known implementations of this mechanism.`