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

"Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com> Mon, 09 October 2017 02:21 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 499EA133090; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 5cOJx-MfDyR8; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEE89132199; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DQD36933; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:21:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMA404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.45) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 03:21:32 +0100
Received: from DGGEMA501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.204]) by DGGEMA404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:21:23 +0800
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension@ietf.org>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-10: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTPgKEZM2GMwEyUkS9Naapbj77x6LWjV+AgAQ//BA=
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:21:22 +0000
Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FC7590FDB@DGGEMA501-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <150722574941.1338.17678983518705938171.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmW1T0zY_nDt15xgxOsdBtmuMSRa=2+bE8HF8eQGN8uswQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmW1T0zY_nDt15xgxOsdBtmuMSRa=2+bE8HF8eQGN8uswQ@mail.gmail.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FC7590FDBDGGEMA501MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.59DADD2F.002E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.204, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7135be4a7f06ff0976f601c86facdbbd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/sxk-07sm2rKh134hVvUDDetjnWw>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 Oct 2017 02:21:40 -0000

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for the comments.
We will change according to the first comment.
For the second comment, I think Greg’s text is good. What do you think?

BR,
Amy
From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 1:23 AM
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension@ietf.org; Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-10: (with COMMENT)

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 <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> 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."