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

Hi Jerry, 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS [mailto:gash@att.com] 
> Envoyé : vendredi 9 mars 2007 05:28
> À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; pce@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [Pce] draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt 
> 
> 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)?

Two objective functions listed in 5.1.17 are specified in section 5.1 of
draft-lee-pce-global-concurrent-optimization-02.txt.
We can add other synchronized objective functions in the next revision of the gco draft.

> 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

Hum, this would create dependancy between the PCEP spec which is stable and this new OF draft.

> , or perhaps in draft-leroux-pce-of-00.txt.

We don't really like this option as we want to keep the OF draft generic.

One could write a short draft that would define a set of straightforward unsynchronized objective functions including those we listed in 4657.

Regards,

JL

> 
> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Jerry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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