[Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03: (with COMMENT)

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this text:

   The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
   by legacy implementations.  If one of the subobjects is received in a
   RSVP-TE object that does not understand it, it will behave as
   described in [RFC3209] and [RFC4874]. 
   
I think something is confused. Do RSVP-TE objects understand subobjects?
Or is this 

   The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
   by legacy implementations.  If a legacy implementations receives one 
   of the subobjects in an RSVP-TE object that it does not understand,
the
   legacy implementation will behave as described in [RFC3209] and
[RFC4874]. 

correct?