Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-04.txt as a WG document ?

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Mon, 18 June 2007 14:07 UTC

Return-path: <pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I0HtL-0002jp-Vx; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:07:39 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I0HtK-0002jk-O8 for pce@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:07:38 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I0HtJ-0000eT-DF for pce@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:07:38 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2007 10:07:37 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,435,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="123898174:sNHT138984358"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l5IE7btU020588; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:07:37 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l5IE7961005718; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:07:37 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:07:21 -0400
Received: from [10.86.104.180] ([10.86.104.180]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:07:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1181922835.4672b613b90d9@www.imp.polymtl.ca>
References: <991B1574-7163-4B0F-A46E-F2D884BDB682@cisco.com> <1181573369.466d60f9583ab@www.imp.polymtl.ca> <18233BB2-3F21-4F59-98C3-A99124E3103A@cisco.com> <1181922835.4672b613b90d9@www.imp.polymtl.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <FD4CB391-06C8-4AE2-9EBA-AB92EE68AEA7@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-04.txt as a WG document ?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:06:58 -0400
To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@polymtl.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2007 14:07:20.0777 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC8CEB90:01C7B1B1]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2225; t=1182175657; x=1183039657; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Pce]=20Adopting=20draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-op timization-04.txt=09as=20a=20WG=20document=20? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Meral=20Shirazipour=20<meral.shirazipour@polymtl.ca>; bh=XT/l+lcoBMq6Zd5i1axXkbPPx0sdR3z9HKZe/YLK1SQ=; b=IT/0EjME3wixeFQejDPWOhnpJ1tMzXMDYhXwbdwzR4+8wMY/u0tA0lH3QBLZxp+W7fmIQgMa CbB0qnPU02O6sY0ZqEmSPxlBRjUkTkv6dbY5NpLAskgNs69M8hbzBroJ;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org

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 <jvasseur@cisco.com>:
>
>> 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 <jvasseur@cisco.com>:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> Pce@lists.ietf.org
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce