Subject: [Pce] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:37:51 -0800

Erik Kline 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ section 7.3.1 ]

* This intended handling of the LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV does not seem
  to be discussed anywhere in this document.  Should there be some text
  about it, or is this TLV left over from previous iterations of the document?

* 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?

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

[[ nits ]]

[ section 4 ]

* "provide a mean" -> "provide a means", perhaps

[ section 5.5.4 ]

* "and then notify it to" -> "and then sends a notification to", or something

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:54:59 +0530

Hi Erik,

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

The text and encoding is inspired from RFC 8664
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#section-4.3.2

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.

Unless something is significantly broken here, we can ask the authors
to add a reference to the RFC for clarity!

Thanks!
Dhruv

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:56:11 -0800

(For some reason your reply ended up in my spam folder...)

Ah, yes, a short reference to that would have been helpful.  (I do
recognize that within the intended audience it might be taken as well
known, though.)

I'll clear my discuss right away.