Hi JL,
Ok for the
distinction, however, I still think objective functions should not
be included in PCECP.
It is not
clear to me why PCC should require different objective functions for different
requests.
Moreover, in
case of PCE-PCE request, a PCE could affect TE
optimization also within other domains.
Thank you
Filippo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:13
PM
Subject: RE: Objective functions in PCECP
(draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs-04.txt)
Hi Filippo
Please note that "MAY include" =/= "MUST support the
inclusion"...
>As a general comment: is it really a
must to include in a communication protocol information that may be
common for all requests?
>maybe something could be better done
through configuration
No
the inclusion is a MAY, but the protocol MUST allow you to do it if you
want...
Regards,
JL
Hi,
In section 3 (Introduction):
[..] The path computation request [..] MAY also
include an objective function.
In the rest of the document, MUST is always
used instead of MAY
One comment about the use of "MUST" related
to objective functions.
In my view some information are
request-specific (source, dest, bandwidth..),others are general (e.g.,
objective functions), i.e. they should be the same for every request. For
example, what about the overall network resource utilization (i.e.
optimization) if PCC requires different objective functions for
different requests?
As a general comment: is it really a must
to include in a communication protocol information that may be common
for all requests? maybe something could be better done through
configuration
Thank you
Filippo
|
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
