Hi Jerry, > -----Message d'origine----- > De : ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 9 mars 2007 05:28 > À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt > > Hi JL, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:50 PM > > To: ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt > > > > Hi Jerry, > > > > Thanks for the feedback and comments. > > > > Please see inline, > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé > : samedi 3 > > > mars 2007 01:54 À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc > > > : ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS Objet : RE: [Pce] > > > draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt > > > > > > 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.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4657.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? > > > > Actually we prefer to keep this draft generic, and define specific > > objective functions in other documents. For instance > > draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-02.txt > requests for three > > code points within the OF registry. > > I guess I have the same question. Which PCEP document(s) > will specify the missing 6 objective functions, listed above, > as required in Section 5.1.17 of the PCECP Generic > Requirements (RFC 4657)?
Two objective functions listed in 5.1.17 are specified in section 5.1 of draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-02.txt. We can add other synchronized objective functions in the next revision of the gco draft. > I don't think these should be > specified in 'other' (unnamed) documents, they should appear > in the main PCEP specification document > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-07.txt Hum, this would create dependancy between the PCEP spec which is stable and this new OF draft. > , or perhaps in draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt. We don't really like this option as we want to keep the OF draft generic. One could write a short draft that would define a set of straightforward unsynchronized objective functions including those we listed in 4657. Regards, JL > > Thanks, > Regards, > 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
