Hi JL, Looks like a good start.
Looking through the IANA section, I don't see registration of the objective functions (OFs) required in Section 5.1.17 of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt: " The PCECP MUST support at least the following "unsynchronized" functions: - Minimum cost path with respect to a specified metric (shortest path) - Least loaded path - Maximum available bandwidth path Also, the PCECP MUST support at least the following "synchronized" objective functions: - Minimize aggregate bandwidth consumption on all links - Maximize the residual bandwidth on the most loaded link - Minimize the cumulative cost of a set of diverse paths" Shouldn't these standard OFs and their parameters be registered from the start? It would also be useful to illustrate how each of these OFs are encoded, perhaps in an illustrative appendix. How can new OFs be specified, i.e., how will extensibility of OFs and their parameters be accommodated? Thanks, Regards, Jerry ________________________________ From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt Hi all, This new draft defines PCED and PCEP extensions for the encoding of objective functions. We are waiting for WG feedback/comments. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt. Regards, JL _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
