Re: [Pce] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> 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 ?
> >
> >
> >