Subject: [CCAMP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 20:48:20 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-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-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension/

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

Thank you for addressing my discuss and most of my comments. I'll note that the
following comment applied to two fields ("Availability level" and "LSP
Bandwidth at Availability level n"), while the fix has only been applied to
"Availability Level":

> Section 3.1 defines two fields as being "32-bit IEEE floaing point", which
> runs the risk of becoming ambiguous in the future (e.g., while no 32-bit
> decimal representations are currently defined, IEEE did define new, smaller
> formats in the most recent revision of IEEE 754). Additionally, byte ordering
> is important here. Recommend changing as:
>
> "This field is a binary32-format floating point number as defined by
> [IEEE754-2008]. The bytes are transmitted in network order; that is, the byte
> containing the sign bit is transmitted first."