Re: [CCAMP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-10: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,
would the following be acceptable to address your latter comment:
OLD
"Length: A 16 bits field that expresses the length of the TLV in
   bytes. "
NEW
"Length: 2 octets, 16 bits."

Regards,
Greg


On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-10: 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-ospf-
> availability-extension/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This could lead to random outcomes
> "If multiple are present, only the first Availability
>    SCSI-TLV for an availability level carried in the same ISCD SHALL be
>    processed. "
> I would suggest the following instead:
> "If multiple are present, the Availability
>    SCSI-TLV with the lowest bandwidth value SHALL be
>    processed. "
>
> Nit:
> In section 3.1 you may actually specify the actual length value as done
> for the type:
> OLD
> "Length: A 16 bits field that expresses the length of the TLV in
>    bytes. "
> NEW
> "Length: 4 (bytes), 16 bits."
>
>
>