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

[Mike McBride <[e-mail]>]

The change is perfect. Thank you Samuel.

mike

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 9:56 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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]."
>
>
>
>