Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: Discuss
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-extension-for-pce-controller/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ section 7.3.1 ] * This intended handling of the LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV does not seem to be discussed anywhere in this document. Should there be some text about it, or is this TLV left over from previous iterations of the document? * Saying that the LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV holds a pair of global IPv6 addresses seems confusing to me. If the pair of global IPv6 addresses is to be considered "on link" in the sense that IPv6 ND can be successfully be performed on the link for both of these addresses, then "ONLINK" might be better than LINKLOCAL. * Also, why are two interface IDs required? I would have expected that only the outgoing interface name/ID would be of relevance to the recipient of a message with TLV in it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [[ nits ]] [ section 4 ] * "provide a mean" -> "provide a means", perhaps [ section 5.5.4 ] * "and then notify it to" -> "and then sends a notification to", or something _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
