[Pce] Discuss raised on draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 24 April 2008 11:24 UTC
Return-Path: <pce-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CB43A6B96; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654793A6988 for <pce@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35gHiURtpgbs for <pce@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E6F3A67AE for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m3OBOTHb018134 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:24:29 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m3OBOSlV018078 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:24:29 +0100
Message-ID: <049901c8a5fd$c0a66b60$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pce@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:19:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Subject: [Pce] Discuss raised on draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, Dave Ward has raised a Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp during IESG review. It reads... == It would be very helpful to put a listing of policy attributes that are under consideration in a section before the scenarios. The scenarios are very helpful as examples but, they are limited in their usefulness to understand what attributes and constraints are to be used to create policy. The doc is theoretical enough on the discussion of policy that it becomes unclear the actions that are to be taken. There is also little discussion on the policy distribution mechanism when the PCC is separated from the PCE. It would seem an important part of the framework and some more text is required to understand what is necessary. There are statements that COPS is not required but, it is referred to throughout the doc. If it is not required what is another technique that could be used, recommended or is going to be followed in the WG? == You can see a copy at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-path-comp/comment/80085/ Do the authors have any thoughts on how to respond? Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
- [Pce] Discuss raised on draft-ietf-pce-policy-ena… Adrian Farrel