Hi JL, > > IMO an important missing PCECP requirement is identified in > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-07.txt > > Appendix A (Compliance with the PCECP Requirement Document): > > > > " Here is the list of currently unsatisfied requirements: > > > > o Allow to select/prefer from advertised list of standard > > objective > > functions/options > > > > o Allow to customize objective function/options > > > > o Support "unsynchronized" & "synchronized" objective functions" > > > > They all deal with the missing 6 objective functions required > > in RFC 4657, and are an important omission in PCEP, so far. > > > In montreal we indicated that objective functions would not > be covered in the base PCEP spec. > There was no objection. This was recalled in San Diego, again > no objection...
Well that doesn't cast it in concrete, I'll register my objection. Without objective functions, PCE would not be able to do much to optimize path computation. I think it's important for PCEP to include the objective functions required in the PCECP generic requirements in the base PCEP spec. > > You say that PCEP is 'stable' so you don't want to add them > > there? > > What I say is that this would create dependency between PCEP > and OF drafts which is not good. The base PCEP draft should > not have any dependency with other drafts. > > > Does that mean no further changes to PCEP before > > WGLC? > > Definitely no! > > But, again, note that it was agreed that objective functions > would not be covered in the base spec. See above comments. > > I don't think other new drafts (e.g., > > draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-02.txt) that > > specify perhaps *new* PCEP requirements, should be satisfying > > the original RFC 4657 PCECP requirements on PCEP. > > Why? > > Draft-lee specifies two objective functions listed in 4657, > where is the problem? Several. No rationale to put generic PCECP requirements in some other draft besides the base PCEP draft. The draft isn't a WG draft. There isn't any compelling reason to not specify the objective functions in the base PCEP draft. > > You also > > say 'We can add other synchronized objective functions in the > > next revision of the gco draft.' I don't think that's the > > right place to satisfy the PCECP requirements. > > Why? See above comments. Thanks, Regards, Jerry _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
