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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:08 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Updated.

> ** 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?
>

I have added "In case of an invalid value, the Sub-TLV MUST be ignored
and the previous value is maintained." in sub-TLV to handle it for all
such cases. Also added a sentence in section 6.4 to log this event.

> ** 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/
>
>

All nits are fixed.

Thank you for your review!

Dhruv