Hi Jerry, all, > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Ash, Gerald > R (Jerry) > Envoyé : dimanche 8 janvier 2006 01:34 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JP Vasseur > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : RE: [Pce] RE: I-D > ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs-03.txt > > > I'll stop the discussion here and let the authors of this > ID and the > > WG voice their opinion but it is I think quite important to avoid > > unnecessary complexity if not required. > > I agree with JP here. I have made a similar comment a few > times wrt complexity of other PCE requirements... > > For reoptimization, IMO it is sufficient to request > reoptimization and specify the current path. As suggested > earlier by Dimitri, I think this wording of the requirement is fine: > "The path computation request message MUST indicate if the > computation is for path reoptimization of the TE LSP and MUST > include the current path of this LSP."
This re-wording sounds good to me. The requirement is quite straightforward by the way. There is functionally nothing new from what is performed today on head-end LSRs... > > I think specifying thresholds for 'how much improvement will > a PCC accept', etc., is more complex that needed at this stage. I agree. IMO this introduces useless complexity at this stage. As well pointed out by JP the path needs to be computed anyway so why not replying and letting the PCC decide whether the LSP has to be reoptimized or not? Regards, JL > > Perhaps we can add such a capability in a later phase, after > we get some experience to verify that it is really needed. > > Thanks, > Jerry > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
