(For some reason your reply ended up in my spam folder...) Ah, yes, a short reference to that would have been helpful. (I do recognize that within the intended audience it might be taken as well known, though.)
I'll clear my discuss right away. On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 8:25 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
