RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt

"ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS" <gash@att.com> Fri, 09 March 2007 09:26 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 1HPbN5-00028B-W5; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:26:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPWmr-0006Y2-VF for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:33:01 -0500
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com ([216.82.250.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPWmo-0000tD-ED for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:33:01 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: gash@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1173414776!23215100!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 7507 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2007 04:32:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO attrh0i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2007 04:32:56 -0000
Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by attrh0i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l294WujW022656; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:32:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kcclust06evs1.ugd.att.com ([135.38.164.89]) by attrh0i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l294Wm7I022633; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:32:51 -0500 (EST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:28:27 -0600
Message-ID: <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA0DDC82C5@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0726C2A1@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcdbVwERm/G70y43SzGrppgaWl9PcQBztA2QAMiArrAAbnR58A==
References: <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA0DDC827B@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com> <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0726C2A1@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr>
From: "ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS" <gash@att.com>
To: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com>, pce@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Cc:
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 JL,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN 
> [mailto:jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:50 PM
> To: ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS; pce@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt 
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback and comments.
> 
> Please see inline, 
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS [mailto:gash@att.com] 
> > Envoyé : samedi 3 mars 2007 01:54
> > À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; pce@ietf.org
> > Cc : ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS
> > Objet : RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt 
> > 
> > Hi JL,
> > 
> > Looks like a good start.  
> > 
> > Looking through the IANA section, I don't see registration of 
> > the objective functions (OFs) required in Section 5.1.17 of
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4657.txt:
> > 
> > "  The PCECP MUST support at least the following "unsynchronized"
> >    functions:
> > 
> >    - Minimum cost path with respect to a specified metric
> >      (shortest path)
> >    - Least loaded path
> >    - Maximum available bandwidth path
> > 
> >    Also, the PCECP MUST support at least the following 
> >    "synchronized" objective functions:
> > 
> >    - Minimize aggregate bandwidth consumption on all links
> >    - Maximize the residual bandwidth on the most loaded link
> >    - Minimize the cumulative cost of a set of diverse paths"
> > 
> > Shouldn't these standard OFs and their parameters be 
> > registered from the start?
> 
> Actually we prefer to keep this draft generic, and define 
> specific objective functions in other documents. For instance 
> draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-02.txt requests 
> for three code points within the OF registry.

I guess I have the same question.  Which PCEP document(s) will specify the missing 6 objective functions, listed above, as required in Section 5.1.17 of the PCECP Generic Requirements (RFC 4657)?  I don't think these should be specified in 'other' (unnamed) documents, they should appear in the main PCEP specification document http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-07.txt, or perhaps in draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt.

Thanks,
Regards,
Jerry

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