Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib

"Masanori Miyazawa" <ma-miyazawa@kddilabs.jp> Tue, 20 March 2012 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ma-miyazawa@kddilabs.jp>
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 E575321F8683 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAmJwa4B+taa for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC49C21F8671 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AAB17480DF; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:36:12 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Sztl0Y346Lo; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:36:11 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail.cn.kddilabs.jp (yellow.lan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.98.10]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F4417480D6; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:36:11 +0900 (JST)
Received: from miyazawaPC (unknown [172.19.64.90]) by mail.cn.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C831E0002; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:36:11 +0900 (JST)
From: Masanori Miyazawa <ma-miyazawa@kddilabs.jp>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'Acee Lindem' <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib@tools.ietf.org
References: <4D336515-2D98-4DA7-8D58-28ED03C3854B@ericsson.com> <4F67462E.2000209@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F67462E.2000209@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:36:17 +0900
Message-ID: <019b01cd069e$6d956880$48c03980$@jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac0F3tDxcA86ct5yQaOdfzgBbxHWzQAnorZg
Content-Language: ja
Cc: 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:36:24 -0000

Acee,
Thank you for your comments. 
I will review the latest version based on your comments.

Lou,
Thank you for your help. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend the next
week's meeting, so I want to have discussions by e-mail.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Lou Berger
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:44 PM
> To: Acee Lindem; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: CCAMP
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib
> 
> Thank you Acee,
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Looks like we won't be able to request publication until these comments
> are addressed.  (Better to address them now rather than IETF LC.)  I
suggest
> taking advantage of authors and Acee being together next week and closing
> these issues.  If it helps, we can make some room in our overly tight
agenda
> for discussion -- expect the chairs to ask about status either way...
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 3/18/2012 6:50 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> > Hey Masanori, Tomohiro, and Tom,
> >
> > Lou asked me to take another look at this draft and I have some
significant
> comments/questions.
> >
> >
> >   1. Many of the textual conventions are longer than they need to be.
> While ISIS is, in general, more verbose than OSPF, you most of the textual
> conventions are longer than they need to be.
> >
> >
> >            TedAreaIdTC - This is 32 octets while I the longest ISIS
> address is 20 octets. For OSPF, the Area ID is 4 octets.
> >            TedRouterIDTC - This is 32 octets while the OSPF router ID
> is 4 octets and the ISIS system ID is 6 octets.
> >
> >       This really doesn't cause any problems but I think it needs to be
> addressed.
> >
> >
> >    2. Bandwidth values - All the bandwidth values are represented as
bytes
> per second with an Unsigned32 range. However, RFC 3630 represents these
> values sing an IEEE floating point value. Additionally, this
representation
> results in a maximum bandwidth value of 32Gbps (without error correct).
> I think this may soon become much too low (if not already).
> >
> >
> >    3. For the TED table, please move tedLocalRouterID and
> TedRemoteRouterID so the items constituting the index are in the beginning
> of the TED entry.
> >
> >    4. For tedSrlgIndex, should there be a reference another RFC?
> >
> >    5. Section 11 is missing one of the key reviewers ;^).
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp