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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
