[CCAMP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 09 April 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B8C1200B7; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, ccamp@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.95.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <155483726628.19683.16168772559257646283.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 12:14:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/3mZzKDdvPyrGdAeK93ujBIYhsIQ>
Subject: [CCAMP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 19:14:27 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: 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-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability/



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

(1) Section 3.2.  Nit.
s/When a node receives Availability TLVs which mixed of zero index and non-zero
index/ When a node receives Availability TLVs with both zero and non-zero
indexes/

s/there’re are/there are/

(2) Section 4.0.  Nit.
s/Especially section 7.1.2 of [RFC5920] discuss/Section 7.1.2 of [RFC5902]
discusses/

(3) Concur with secdir review/Magnus on the need to clarify the format of the
availability field (is it IEEE754-2008?)  If IEEE754 is used (as Ben/Ignas
notes due to RFC8330), then the text should explicitly cite the constraints of
the precision referenced by Magnus.