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

"Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064B21200B8; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 02:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ilRTKYhHvkDK; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 02:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B092D12006D; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 02:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 51EDAD992CD2225A7437; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:42:49 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.39) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:42:48 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.72]) by dggemm422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 17:42:44 +0800
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W0NDQU1QXSBNaXJqYSBLw7xobGV3aW5kJ3MgTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uIG9uIGRy?= =?utf-8?B?YWZ0LWlldGYtY2NhbXAtcnN2cC10ZS1iYW5kd2lkdGgtYXZhaWxhYmlsaXR5?= =?utf-8?Q?-14:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHU6gTqmkNghJ8M4UmM1zo7JCMmY6YyALEQ
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 09:42:43 +0000
Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCFBD6745@DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <155428596335.22989.3373026547343406741.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155428596335.22989.3373026547343406741.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.169.30.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/poRdx5gpLLatVyA-JJerjj9isQ0>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14=3A_=28with_COMMEN?= =?utf-8?q?T=29?=
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:42:54 -0000

Hi Mirja, 

Thanks for the comment. 
In section 3.1, the description of Index defines that there's n*(1:1) association or n:1 association between bandwidth-TLV and availability-TLV. 
That's why an extra bandwidth-TLV in the pair list is considered as an error. 
If a message with bandwidth-TLV only, without any availability-TLV, it's possible to be done as you described. 

BR,
Amy

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 6:06 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one quick question I was wondering about in section 3.2.:
"When a node receives
   several <bandwidth, availability> pairs, but there're are extra
   bandwidth-TLVs without matching index Availability-TLV, the extra
   bandwidth-TLVs MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be propagated."
Why is that? Is it not valid to also send some requests without availability? I thought that would make sense because it's basically saying, "just give me whatever you have because I don't know the availability requirements anyway", no?


_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp