Hi Dimitri, Thanks for these comments.
Please see inline, > -----Message d'origine----- > De : PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mardi 14 août 2007 21:04 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:32 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds > > > > Hi, > > > > The meeting in Chicago was broadly in support of adopting > two I-Ds as > > working group drafts: > > > > - Encoding of Objective Functions in Path Computation Element (PCE) > > communication and discovery protocols > > draft-leroux-pce-of-01.txt > > ok, three comments though: > > - units B-R is from def. speed(bps)-res.capacity(b) -> ? >please check B is in bps and R is in bps. B-R is the actual bandwidth consumption on the link, in bps. We will clarify the units in next revision. > - still unclear to me whether isis pce disc. will or not use a > separate inst. (cf. gen-app discussion at isis working group) ISIS pce disc relies on procedures defined in 4971. This is a deployment issue to use same or separate instances. > - question about oscillation effects resulting from opposed obj. > adv. from diff. pce's Would you please clarify and provide an example? Regards, JL > > > - Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element > > Communication Protocol draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-01.txt > > architectural impact to be clarified before moving forward i > think that the important disc. point is whether such info > obtained from TED or via other means > > also from <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/pce.txt> > > * 13) Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element > * Communication Protocol > * draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-00.txt (Jon Parker - 5mn) [95] > * > * Pce does not know class pool. > * Dimitri: in interprovider context, how do you assure global > significance? > * Jon: this is an issue not tackled here. > * Adrian: how PCE has knowledge class pool ? You would > suggest to build this knowledge based on IGP > * flooded information ? > * JP: please respin the draft tackling issue raised by Dimitri > * Not many people red the draft > > -> draft still does not seem to address that issue. > > > Can you please indicate your opinion. > > > > > > Now that the inter-AS requirements work is stable, the > authors of two > > I-Ds related to the use of PCE for P2MP path computations > (Adrian is > > one of the > > authors) have asked us to look at adopting this work. We > think that a > > little more discussion is needed first, and have asked them > to present > > the I-Ds in Vancouver so that we can make a decision immediately > > afterwards. Please have a look at the I-Ds and send your > comments to > > the mailing list. > > > > - PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for Point to Multipoint > > Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-02.txt > > > > - Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to > > Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) > > and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) > > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt > > > > Thanks, > > JP and Adrian > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
