[CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Thu, 08 August 2013 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA0F1F0D38 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.283
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lZeGgEXWOvCh for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B2D11E81DB for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail72-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.247) by AM1EHSOBE025.bigfish.com (10.3.207.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:50 +0000
Received: from mail72-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail72-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DD12C0122 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: 1
X-BigFish: PS1(zzec9Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail72-am1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(37854004)(199002)(189002)(63696002)(59766001)(77982001)(46102001)(66066001)(65816001)(80022001)(79102001)(47736001)(76786001)(4396001)(76576001)(31966008)(81342001)(49866001)(74706001)(69226001)(83322001)(77096001)(81686001)(47976001)(80976001)(81542001)(50986001)(56816003)(76176001)(76796001)(74316001)(54316002)(33646001)(56776001)(54356001)(74662001)(76482001)(74876001)(74366001)(51856001)(16406001)(47446002)(53806001)(74502001)(83072001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB144; H:BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.224.50; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail72-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail72-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1375984128826515_2475; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.246]) by mail72-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C362E013E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by AM1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.3.207.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:48 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB144.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.147) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.341.1; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:46 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.144) by BY2PR05MB144.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.731.16; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:44 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.229]) by BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.57]) with mapi id 15.00.0731.000; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:44 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac6UXh3OMYPEaNUmSzSE7m3SYlvx7w==
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:48:43 +0000
Message-ID: <6a054c6778634c0f9d84db0f09b9dfda@BY2PR05MB142.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.50]
x-forefront-prvs: 093290AD39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:48:58 -0000

Hi,

I have a real concern with this draft because it appears to be heading us down the road of re-inventing PCEP in RSVP signaling with the dubious justification that it is needed in those situations in which a PCE is not available.  However, if you re-invent PCEP in RSVP signaling, then you have effectively ensured that there are no situations in which a PCE or its signaling equivalent are not available.

Why is this better than simply ensuring that a PCE is available in those situations in which it is needed?

Yours Irrespectively,

John