[Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: 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-teas-yang-te-topo/



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

I found myself wondering what the last sentence in

  - TE Topology may not be congruent to the routing topology (topology
     constructed based on routing adjacencies) in a given TE System.
     There isn't always a one-to-one association between a TE-link and
     a routing adjacency. For example, the presence of a TE link
     between a pair of nodes doesn't necessarily imply the existence of
     a routing-adjacency between these nodes.

was saying about what IS implied between these nodes. I'm guessing, but this
draft seems to assume a relatively low level amount of experience with traffic
engineering, so I can imagine readers who could benefit from a word or two of
explanation.