[RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05
Mike McBride via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 19 August 2024 22:06 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.2.52] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97639C14F6FC; Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mike McBride via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.22.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172410519821.1939439.15363652192017962790@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:06:38 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: STGBA2BDQFZKF637NIPD3XEL2IS2DB7V
X-Message-ID-Hash: STGBA2BDQFZKF637NIPD3XEL2IS2DB7V
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-05
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/bM1Cz4WQ4ImT6DIRD2CtfhLfVyw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>
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]."
- [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-st… Mike McBride via Datatracker
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pc… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pc… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pc… Mike McBride