[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05

["Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" <[e-mail]>]

Just to keep mail thread updated - new version submitted based on comment from Mike.

Regards,
Samuel

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:57 PM
To: Mike McBride <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05

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 <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 12:07 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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]."

--- Begin Message ---

A new version of Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-06.txt has
been successfully submitted by Samuel Sidor and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:     draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Revision: 06
Title:    Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for Stateful PCE.
Date:     2024-08-28
Group:    pce
Pages:    12
URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-06.txt
Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/
HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-06.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-06

Abstract:

   A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
   the current network state, including computed Label Switched Path
   (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and the pending path
   computation requests.  This information may then be considered when
   computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for any associated and
   dependent LSPs, received from a Path Computation Client (PCC).

   RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in
   stateless Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).

   This document extends this capability for the Stateful PCEP messages.



The IETF Secretariat

--- End Message ---