Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01

Hi Spencer (CCAMP copied as well),

Here is a link for everyone's convenience: 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01.txt  

At IETF 80, there were questions about overlap with other CCAMP drafts containing interface delay metrics and proposals for new TE sub-TLVs. Have you or your co-authors, done looked at how your draft is positioned versus these other drafts? While these applications have differing goals, the CCAMP/OSPF chairs requested that this analysis be done. 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt

We would like to avoid having exactly the same information advertised in two different link Sub-TLVs. I'd hope we could agree on common units. 

Thanks,
Acee

On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Spencer Giacalone wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
> As you may have noticed, another version of the OSPF TE Express Path
> draft has been posted. We made a number of changes based on feedback
> from IETF 80. We invite your comments and suggestions. The main
> changes include:
> 
> -We have consolidated some sub-TLVs for efficiency. There are no
> longer nominal and anomalous sub-TLVs for delay and loss. The
> functionality for signaling steady state verses abnormal performance
> for these parameters have been moved into two sub-TLVs (where we used
> to have four).
> 
> -In order to advertise both normal and abnormal network performance
> state in consolidated sub-TLVs, a bit, called the anomalous (A) but
> has been added to certain sub-TLVs. The A bit is set when the measured
> value of a parameter exceeds a configured maximum threshold. The A bit
> is cleared when the measured value falls below its configured reuse
> threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV represents steady state
> link performance.
> 
> -We changed the encodings of certain variables from floating point to
> fixed point. This change permits the addition of the A bit (when
> necessary), it allows bit-space reservations to be made, and it
> permits a common TLV format across the bulk of the TLVs in the draft.
> In addition, the new encodings address concerns about granularity and
> interoperability.
> 
> -We added sub-TLVs for Residual Bandwidth and Available Bandwidth.
> Residual bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus
> the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. Available bandwidth
> is defined to be residual bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used
> for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets.
> 
> -Various other modifications were made across the draft. These
> include, but are not limited to, the abstract, the introduction, the
> thresholding specifications, and a number of field descriptions.
> 
> -Last, but certainly not least, Stefano Providi has joined the draft
> 
> We look forward to hearing your comments and concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer, Alia, Dave, John, Stefano
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf