Re: [CCAMP] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14

"Yemin (Amy)" <> Thu, 11 April 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD2C120392; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kS4mFFBOWgga; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8A9120006; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1A49CC1FB63FC0719F46; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:07:58 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:07:57 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:07:57 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:07:57 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 23:07:25 +0800
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <>
To: Shwetha Bhandari <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14
Thread-Index: AQHU7nT21KN1wv0cukq3H2FQarWNGqY3EwW5
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:07:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:08:02 -0000

Hi Shwetha, 

Thanks for the comments. 
We will change text to informative text as below: 
When a node does not support the Availability TLV, the node should send a PathErr 
message with Error Code "Unknown Attributes TLV[RFC 5420]".

发件人: Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker []
发送时间: 2019年4月9日 9:38
主题: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14

Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari
Review result: Has Issues

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

   This document introduces an optional Availability TLV in
   Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineer (RSVP-TE)
   signaling. This extension can be used to set up a Generalized Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) in
   conjunction with the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object.
   The term availability is used to describe links with variable bandwidth.

This TLV and its processing described in the document is useful in efficient
network planning of the link capacity by communicating different bandwidth
availability classes needed by different types of services over variable
bandwidth links. I do not see any operational or manageability related issues
due to introducing this new TLV and its processing.

However I concur with the Genart review comment that raises an issue on the
recommended behavior of existing implementation of RSVP protocol that do not
understand the TLV: This
needs to be resolved before the document can be considered ready.