[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]."