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:ek.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:57 PM To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Cc: Éric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com>; Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-control...@ietf.org 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 <d...@dhruvdhody.com> 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 <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > > <nore...@ietf.org> 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 Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
