IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37777132D87; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SxUMVo4Glrr8; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1809132DFA; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v7VDrpRQ053537 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:53:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD618@blreml501-mbx>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:53:51 -0500
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <449D815E-7611-41D9-A596-89C4C29512C6@nostrum.com>
References: <150397488548.13263.5782301568612117726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD618@blreml501-mbx>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/rAxs-QJOcj0g_uEK-1M5_ULu7OY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:54:08 -0000

> On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben, 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>> Sent: 29 August 2017 08:18
>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Pce] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03:
>> (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-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/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-rfc6006bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Is section 2 expected to be of more than background interest to an
>> implementer?
>> If not, I suggest moving it to an appendix, or at least towards the back
>> of the document.
>> 
> [[Dhruv Dhody]] This is as per the earlier published RFC. This section has not changed in the bis document. 
> Including a requirement section was quite usual in the PCEP RFCs published earlier, I know that in the recent times this is discouraged. 
> 
> In the case of bis document, there is some value in keeping the spirit and order of the original RFC, so that a clear comparison with the to-be-obsolute-RFC is possible. 
> Do you agree, if not I can move as suggested. 

I agree, it makes since to leave it as it was in the original.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email