[Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 05 April 2018 00:32 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D4C126FB3; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources@ietf.org, Vishnu Beeram <vbeeram@juniper.net>, teas-chairs@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.77.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152288835835.25908.11272263575107801674.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:32:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BE9GZPx38-5VBBx6gX5xvr5_1sQ>
Subject: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:32:38 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It might be nice to have some idea of a typical/expected timescale for length of reservation and distance in the future being reserved, though I concede there is risk that any such suggestion could become stale. In Section 3.2 [...] When the LSP or the request for the LSP with a number of time intervals is cancelled, the PCE must release the resources that were reserved on each of the links along the path of the LSP in every time intervals from the TED. If the bandwidth reserved on a link for the LSP is B from time T2 to T3 and the unreserved bandwidth on the link is B2 from T2 to T3, B is added to the link for the time interval from T2 to T3 and the unreserved bandwidth on the link from T2 to T3 will be B2 + B Is this supposed to describe what happens when the request for an LSP from T2 to T3 is cancelled? If so, the text does not do a good job of indicating it -- the "If the bandwidth reserved..." reads like it's starting a new conditional expression, not necessarily connected to the previous coverage of cancellation. Thank you for the clear security considerations section!
- [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk