Hi Mike, Much thanks for your review!
Adrian, I'm also a bit confused on the intention of the draft. While the tools are not error checking a draft with intended status of PS against a title indicating an individual submission, the title does indicate the source of the document. With the current title, this document is an individual submission to the IETF stream. If this is a product of the working group, the title needs to reflect it. As it is requested to be "PS", it does need to reflect the associated working group. While it is a bit surprising this was not raised in WG Last Call (hopefully folks have read the document), it will definitely be flagged with the other Area Directorate reviews and IESG review. While the working group cycle was very short, the resulting publication cycle will be very long. As the WG LC was based on PS status, I would conclude the group is ok with PS. Either you can change the title to reflect a product of the pce working group or change the status to Informational and I'll take it forward as an individual submission. If you change the title to a product of the pce working group, I'll follow up with a note to the list to double check if anyone has any concerns. And then we can move ahead. Looking forward to your choice😊 Deborah -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:25 AM To: 'Mike McBride' <mmcbri...@gmail.com>; rtg-...@ietf.org Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags....@ietf.org Subject: RE: Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02 Hi Mike, Thanks for taking the time to read this. > Great job on the easy to understand draft. I probably don't want to > know the history of why this is an individual draft but I am curious. > I'll ask Adrian over a drink sometime. Not rejecting the idea of a drink, but just sharing with the wider community... It is fun to exercise the full range of IETF process options from time to time. The chairs did not think it was necessary to delay the draft by putting it into the adoption queue and going through all that piece of process when all that was needed was a last call. > Nits for your consideration: > > Abstract: > "Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol" > -capitalize "communications" as you do in the Introduction. Oh look! Officially there is no 's' on Communication. (Also right in the Introduction) Thanks. > 4. Compatibility Considerations > .. > "It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as > described by the updated text presented in Section 3 so many > implementations, lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have > implemented a consistent and future-proof approach." > > For better readability change to: > "It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as > described by the updated text presented in Section 3. Therefore, many > implementations, lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have > implemented a consistent and future-proof approach." Or something similar. > > Consider removing all instances of the word "so". So, you think 'so' is so so-so? Yup. Caught a couple of equally ambiguous cases. Best, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
