[Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11: 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-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position on the need for clarity in the
definition of Overflow-Count and Overflow-Threshold

** Section 5.2.x.  Error handling:
-- A number of the sub-TLVs define ranges smaller than would be possible given
the number of bit (e.g., 1..604800 in a 32-bit field; 1.100), how would an
error be signaled for values used outside that range?

-- For values that are [IEEE.754.1985]), how should negative value be processed?

** Nits:
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/a Active stateful/an Active stateful/

-- Section 5.2.2.2.  For consistency with the other sections s/1 to 604800/1 to
604800 (7 days)/

-- Section 6.6.  Typo. s/signalling/signaling/