Hi Roman, On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:08 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
