[Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-13: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 02 March 2021 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BEC3A291F; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 07:48:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, julien.meuric@orange.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.26.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <161470009831.27002.13972223936341890806@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 07:48:18 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Af7SoNxQEB8E3lUNPlgo50CYXP8>
Subject: [Pce] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-13=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:48:19 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-13: No Objection

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:


Thank you for the work put into this document. Thank you for addressing my
previous DISCUSS points; I have cleared my previous DISCUSS points but
nevertheless please upload yet-another-revised I-D before sending it to the RFC

Section 7.3.1 should use " IPv6 address: the 128-bit IPv6 link-local address of
the interface." rather than " IPv6 address: A 128-bit IPv6 address of the node."

I hope that this helps to improve the document,



== DISCUSS [kept for history] ==

-- 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 ?

== COMMENTS [kept for history] ==

A minor comment: the abstract is clear but probably a little too long for an

-- Section 7.3 --
Just wonder why  LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRES is not mentioned in this section but
well in the next one ?