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

Hi JL, 

> > IMO an important missing PCECP requirement is identified in 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-07.txt
> >  Appendix A (Compliance with the PCECP Requirement Document):
> > 
> > "   Here is the list of currently unsatisfied requirements:
> > 
> >    o  Allow to select/prefer from advertised list of standard 
> > objective
> >       functions/options
> > 
> >    o  Allow to customize objective function/options
> > 
> >    o  Support "unsynchronized" & "synchronized" objective functions"
> > 
> > They all deal with the missing 6 objective functions required 
> > in RFC 4657, and are an important omission in PCEP, so far.
> 
> 
> In montreal we indicated that objective functions would not 
> be covered in the base PCEP spec. 
> There was no objection. This was recalled in San Diego, again 
> no objection...

Well that doesn't cast it in concrete, I'll register my objection.
Without objective functions, PCE would not be able to do much to
optimize path computation.  I think it's important for PCEP to include
the objective functions required in the PCECP generic requirements in
the base PCEP spec.

> > You say that PCEP is 'stable' so you don't want to add them 
> > there?  
> 
> What I say is that this would create dependency between PCEP 
> and OF drafts which is not good. The base PCEP draft should 
> not have any dependency with other drafts.
> 
> > Does that mean no further changes to PCEP before 
> > WGLC? 
> 
> Definitely no!
> 
> But, again, note that it was agreed that objective functions 
> would not be covered in the base spec.

See above comments.

> > I don't think other new drafts (e.g., 
> > draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-02.txt) that 
> > specify perhaps *new* PCEP requirements, should be satisfying 
> > the original RFC 4657 PCECP requirements on PCEP.  
> 
> Why?
> 
> Draft-lee specifies two objective functions listed in 4657, 
> where is the problem?

Several.  No rationale to put generic PCECP requirements in some other
draft besides the base PCEP draft.  The draft isn't a WG draft.  There
isn't any compelling reason to not specify the objective functions in
the base PCEP draft.

> > You also 
> > say 'We can add other synchronized objective functions in the 
> > next revision of the gco draft.'  I don't think that's the 
> > right place to satisfy the PCECP requirements.
> 
> Why? 

See above comments.

Thanks,
Regards,
Jerry

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