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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 2, 2024, at 08:58, Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Èric, 
> 
> Happy 2024! 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:03 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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" ?
> 
> Dhruv: It was an Editor's note while we were working on the I-D. At this stage perhaps we can just remove the note now and stick it out with the fate of RFC8446bis (which is in the post-WGLC stage). Sean and Russ should chime in if they disagree :)

I was a note to everybody ;) Well technically the audience changed as we marched through the process. It can safely be deleted post IESG comments:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/18

> ## 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).
> 
> Dhruv: FWIW I see the phrase usage in RFC 9325 as well as in the netconf tls 1.3 I-D which was in a recent IESG telechat! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes it’s in 9325 and negotiate is a two way thing.

> ## Section 6
> 
> I wonder about the usefulness of an implementation section having `there are no
> known implementations of this mechanism.`
> 
> Dhruv: PCE WG set out an Implementation Section Policy listed at https://wiki.ietf.org/group/pce/ImplementationPolicy 
> We wanted the WG and the IETF community to be aware of known implementations (or lack thereof) at the time of approval, at publication the section is anyway removed.  

Yep will remove this when we get to the RFC editor queue.

Cheers,
spt