[PWE3] Re: Oustanding Discusses and comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-12.txt ( BCP ) -Brian Carpenter

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Luca,

Luca Martini wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Thanks you for your very good comments. Please find the replies in line 
> below.
>
> Luca
>
>
> DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS:
> ======================
> Brian Carpenter:
>
> Discuss [2005-10-11]:
> Clarity and imprecision issues
> (Some from me and some from a Gen-ART review by
> Joel Halpern.)
>
> LM: Note: I never saw a Gen-ART review. Did an e-mail get lost ?

Perhaps you weren't originally copied? In any case you have all the points,
I think.

Thanks for the proposed updates. They look OK to me.

<snip>

> Big nit: wherever RFCs are cited they should be proper references,
> either normative or informative.
>
> LM: I do not understand this comment. The only RFC cited is Normative. 
> This is clearly indicated in the
> "normative reference" section.
> IANA registries do not have a reference section, so I do know how to put 
> a reference there.

I understand that when text is copied into an IANA registry, the references
will be treated exactly like plain text. But in the RFC version you can
give a normal reference. Here's an example. You have

   AGI Type     Length    Description
      0x01         8      Route distinguisher (RD) as defined in rfc2547

Isn't that normative? In any case, it can be

   AGI Type     Length    Description
      0x01         8      Route distinguisher (RD) as defined in [RFC2547]

with the reference included.

This is only marginally a DISCUSS comment, but since you'll be making an update
anyway, why not?

Thanks

    Brian



_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3