Hi Paul, Thanks for the comments. Regarding nits: we followed the usual way, just show the value field. But I don't mind to make a complete figure. Minor issue: you're quiet right. It should be a MUST here. We will address these comments in next version. Thanks again.
BR, Amy ________________________________________ 发件人: Paul Kyzivat [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2019年1月24日 2:28 收件人: [email protected] 抄送: General Area Review Team 主题: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-13 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-13 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2019-01-23 IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-31 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 1 Nits: 1 1) NIT: Section 3.1 includes the following: ... The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MAY include more than one Availability TLV. The Availability TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Index | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Availability | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I find it confusing that this is described as a TLV yet it shows neither a type nor a length. Apparently it is only showing the value portion of the TLV. The type portion is only mentioned in the IANA considerations section, and isn't explicitly linked to this element. I would expect this to be shown something like: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type=4 | Length=96 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Index | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Availability | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (But the type value needs to be keyed to the IANA assigned value, since there is no guarantee that IANA will assign 4 for this.) 2) MINOR: Section 3.2 includes the following: When a node does not support the Availability TLV, it SHOULD generate PathErr message with the error code "Extended Class-Type Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205]). I have a question about this: Is this the default behavior that is prescribed for any unknown TLV type found in an Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object, or is this behavior specific to the "availability" TLV? It is a problem if this is not the default behavior. And is there a reason for SHOULD (rather than MUST) here? If so, please describe the situations where this need not be done. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
