Hi Eric,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Shuping,
>
> The text is much better but may I still suggest the following:
>
> --- Proposed text by the authors --
> Further, this document specify a new TLV called
> ONLINK-IPV6-ADDRESS
> to describe an IPv6 unnumbered adjacency for a link that does not
> have an IPv6 address assigned.
>
> ---- Proposed text by Éric Vyncke ----
> Further, this document specify a new TLV called
> LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS
> to describe an IPv6 unnumbered adjacency for an interface that
> does not
> have a global IPv6 address assigned.
> -----
> As a side note, I find " IPv6 unnumbered adjacency" a very strange wording as
> an IPv6 always has a 'number' in the sense that link-local address is always
> there.
>
Maybe we could say -
Further, this document specifies a new TLV called
LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS
to describe an IPv6 adjacency for an interface that does not
have a global IPv6 address assigned.
Erik suggested using ONLINK instead of LINKLOCAL for the TLV name. I
am not sure, to me using LINKLOCAL to match with RFC 8664 seems to be
okay. Any thoughts on that?
Thanks!
Dhruv
> Once the revised I-D is posted, then I am clearing my DISCUSS point (please
> send me an email when the revised I-D is posted)
>
> -éric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, 26 February 2021 at 04:43
> To: Erik Kline <[email protected]>, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>
> Cc: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, Julien Meuric
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG
> <[email protected]>, pce-chairs <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and
> COMMENT)
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Thank you for your comments! Please find the diff including the updates
> based on your comments. Thank you!
>
> Diff:
> https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-13.txt
>
> Best regards,
> Shuping
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:57 PM
> To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>
> Cc: Éric Vyncke <[email protected]>; Julien Meuric
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>;
> pce-chairs <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and
> COMMENT)
>
> Dhruv,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> >From my previous review, for reference only:
>
> """
> * 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?
> """
>
> Just for your consideration, in case "ONLINK" seems like it might be
> useful naming.
>
> One more thing of note: I am terrible at naming!
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:46 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > I discussed this offline with one of the authors, who confirmed that
> > while NAI in RFC 8664 uses a pair, in this case, the pair is not
> > needed for the next-hop information and it can be updated as suggested
> > by you.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Éric Vyncke 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:
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the work put into this document. I have not had time
> > > > to review in details though :( but I appreciated the detailed
> > > > description as well as the useful time diagrams.
> > > >
> > > > Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (which may be my bad
> > > > understanding), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies
> > > > would be appreciated).
> > > >
> > > > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > -éric
> > > >
> > > > == DISCUSS ==
> > > >
> > > > -- Section 7.3.1 --
> > > > LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV: I fail to understand why there are
> > > > two addresses in this TLV while others have one one ? Also is
> > > > 'local' and 'remote' really global addresses ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Erik Kline had the same comment.
> > >
> > > The text and encoding is inspired by RFC 8664
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#section-4.3.2
> > >
> > > which says -
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > A reference to RFC8664 and more description can be added.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Dhruv
> > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > > COMMENT:
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > == COMMENTS ==
> > > >
> > > > A minor comment: the abstract is clear but probably a little too
> > > > long for an abstract.
> > > >
> > > > -- Section 7.3 --
> > > > Just wonder why LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRES is not mentioned in this
> > > > section but well in the next one ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
