Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib

Thank you Acee,

Authors,

Looks like we won't be able to request publication until these comments
are addressed.  (Better to address them now rather than IETF LC.)  I
suggest taking advantage of authors and Acee being together next week
and closing these issues.  If it helps, we can make some room in our
overly tight agenda for discussion -- expect the chairs to ask about
status either way...

Lou

On 3/18/2012 6:50 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hey Masanori, Tomohiro, and Tom, 
> 
> Lou asked me to take another look at this draft and I have some significant comments/questions. 
> 
> 
>   1. Many of the textual conventions are longer than they need to be. While ISIS is, in general, more verbose than OSPF, you most of the textual conventions are longer than they need to be. 
> 
> 
>            TedAreaIdTC - This is 32 octets while I the longest ISIS address is 20 octets. For OSPF, the Area ID is 4 octets. 
>            TedRouterIDTC - This is 32 octets while the OSPF router ID is 4 octets and the ISIS system ID is 6 octets. 
> 
>       This really doesn't cause any problems but I think it needs to be addressed. 
> 
> 
>    2. Bandwidth values - All the bandwidth values are represented as bytes per second with an Unsigned32 range. However, RFC 3630 represents these values sing an IEEE floating point value. Additionally, this representation results in a maximum bandwidth value of 32Gbps (without error correct). I think this may soon become much too low (if not already).     
>             
> 
>    3. For the TED table, please move tedLocalRouterID and TedRemoteRouterID so the items constituting the index are in the beginning of the TED entry. 
> 
>    4. For tedSrlgIndex, should there be a reference another RFC?  
> 
>    5. Section 11 is missing one of the key reviewers ;^). 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp