Hi Eric, Thank you for the review. New revision posted regarding the nits. Regarding your comments:
- Regarding BCP14 terms: that was changed in revision 10 [1] to address AD review and discussion in [2]. John had some good rationale on the english explanation against the intent of the wording (comment 2 in [2]) :) - Regarding Boolean bit - yes a little redundant :) the intent was to try and emphasise the need to go from a true/false definition to one of many / enumerated. [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-09&url2=draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10&difftype=--html [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LZFULU-rBrXXxC9HpcuHhYQatqA/ Thanks Andrew On 2023-06-20, 8:52 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement/> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit. Special thanks to Julien Meuric for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS As noted by Jim Guichard, id-nits exhibits some issues that should be fixed before publication. ## Section 3 Is there a reason why PROTECTION MANDATORY uses BCP14 uppercase terms while PROTECTION PREFERRED uses a lower case "should" ? Especially because in section 5, "SHOULD" and "MAY" are used. # NITS ## Section 4.2 Isn't "boolean bit" a little redundant ? _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
