Hi Erik, On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:07 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > >
The text and encoding is inspired from RFC 8664 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#section-4.3.2 IPv6 Link-Local Adjacency: Specified as a pair of (global IPv6 address, interface ID) tuples. It is used to describe an IPv6 adjacency for a link that uses only link-local IPv6 addresses. Each global IPv6 address is configured on a specific router, so together they identify a pair of adjacent routers. The interface IDs identify the link that the adjacency is formed over. Unless something is significantly broken here, we can ask the authors to add a reference to the RFC for clarity! Thanks! Dhruv > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
