Hi Meral,
On Jun 15, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for the answer. But I still think any optimization
application draft
should refer to the others, even if it is only one sentence to say
that there
are no dependencies.
Please suggest to the authors.
Also, since each optimization application draft will
probably propose similar extensions to PCEP, it would be better, at
least from
an implementation point of view, to generalize these extensions
instead of
making them application specific.
"generalize" ?
Thanks.
JP.
Cordially,
Meral
Selon JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Meral,
On Jun 11, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
Hi,
I would support this draft based on its content, but I only see one
problem: it
does not consider or even refer to draft-ietf-pce-brpc-04.txt (or
maybe I
missed it?).
I would rather see a single draft covering all possible optimization
scenarios/solutions based on the PCE architecture.
BRPC is a multi-PCE path computation technique used to compute a
shortest constrained
inter-domain path wheres this ID specifies a (preferably) NMS based
technique where a
set of path computation requests are bundled and send to a PCE with
the objective of
"optimizing" the set of computed paths.
Having several IDs for optimization applications is ok as long as
they refer to
each other and maybe provide an <inter-working> section between the
different
methods.
There is no real reason for referring to each other since there is no
dependency.
Thanks.
JP.
Cordially,
Meral
Selon JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Dear WG,
Do you support the adoption of draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-
optimization-04.txt as a Working Group document ?
Thanks.
JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
