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

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
Editor.

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,

Regards,

-éric

== 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
abstract.

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