Re: [CCAMP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com> Thu, 11 April 2019 11:52 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 351B01201DB; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMmJfz0Mq941; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:52:47 -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 9020D120099; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 04:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7CA55CE0C32954D1444C; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:52:44 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:52:44 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.72]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.211]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:52:36 +0800
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org>, "Daniele Ceccarelli" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU7/m8vfy1Zlj1DkOpMcU52fRIRaY22XXm
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:52:36 +0000
Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCFBDC117@DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <155494089064.22623.12226438782297988498.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155494089064.22623.12226438782297988498.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: [10.203.246.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/udUjKGu6NFnt60m-zQeTyzufFSE>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:52:52 -0000

Hi Adam, 

Thanks for the comments. 
Please see reply inline below. 

BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: Adam Roach via Datatracker [noreply@ietf.org]
发送时间: 2019年4月11日 8:01
收件人: The IESG
抄送: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability@ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com; ccamp@ietf.org
主题: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for everyone's work on this document.

§3.1:

>     Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating point number describes
>     the decimal value of availability requirement for this bandwidth
>     request. The value MUST be less than 1and is usually expressed in
>     the value of 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999.

"32-bit floating point number" is not sufficiently precise to specify the
encoding of this field. Presumably, this is intended to use IEEE 754-2008
32-bit binary interchange format. Please specify this, and add a normative
citation for IEEE 754-2008.

[Amy] We will add a normative reference to IEEE 754-2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.2:

>  When a node does not support the Availability TLV, the node SHOULD
>  generate a PathErr message with the error code "Extended Class-Type
>  Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205]).

Presumably, this "SHOULD" is a restatement of behavior defined in RFC 2205? (I
presume this because there's no way for this specification to retroactively
impose requirements on implementations that don't support it.) If so, please
remove the RFC-2119 language (or include it only as a direct quote from the RFC
that defines the requirement in the first place).
[Amy] Will change to "should".