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,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
<[e-mail]> 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)" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, 26 February 2021 at 04:43
> To: Erik Kline <[e-mail]>, Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, pce-chairs <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 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:[e-mail]]
>     Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:57 PM
>     To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>     Cc: Éric Vyncke <[e-mail]>; Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[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 ?
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     >
>