Subject: [CCAMP] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:31:49 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: 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-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability/

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

I support Ben's DISCUSS as well.

* In addition, I could not find any reference to the Extended Class-Type Error
and the error value Class-Type mismatch even in the IANA registry at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml

Is this something you are defining in this document? If so, an entry in the
IANA consideration section is warranted.

* Section 7

The table seems to be off. Shouldn't this be?

   400                    99.99%

   200                    99.995%

   100                    99.999%

---

From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:01:48 +0000

Hi Suresh, 

Thanks for the comments, please see reply inline. 

BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2019年4月11日 7:31
收件人: The IESG
抄送: [email-masked]; Daniele Ceccarelli; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14: (with COMMENT)

Is this something you are defining in this document? If so, an entry in the
IANA consideration section is warranted.
[Amy] The idea was to use error code aready defined. 
 "error code "Extended Class-Type Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205])", the text is referenced from RFC6003.
You're right that the error type and error code are not assigned by IANA. 
The plan is to use "Unknown Attributes TLV" from RFC 5420 instead. 

* Section 7

   400                    99.99%

   200                    99.995%

   100                    99.999%

[Amy] The table will be updated accordingly.