Subject: [Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:41:03 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09: 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-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/

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

In this text:

   The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
   by a legacy implementation.  If one of the subobjects is received in
   a PCEP object that does not understand it, it will behave as
   described in Section 3.4.3.  
   
I think something is confused. Do PCEP objects understand subobjects? Or
is this 

   The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
   by legacy implementations.  If a legacy implementation receives one 
   of the subobjects that it does not understand in a PCEP object, the
   legacy implementation will behave as described in Section 3.4.3. 

correct?

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 03:07:21 +0000

Hi Spencer, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: 17 November 2015 08:11
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; pce-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-
> sequence-09: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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
> I think something is confused. Do PCEP objects understand subobjects? Or is
> this
> 

Your wording is much better; the change is made in the working copy. 

Thanks! 

Regards,
Dhruv

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce