[Teas] AD review: draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've done my AD review of your draft. This draft is on a complex problem space. In reviewing it, it reminded me of the discussion around the MLN work (RFC5212, RFC5339) which discussed scheduling of resources (virtual). Most significantly, I missed discussion related to operator policy. Here's several critical items which were discussed in the MLN work:

  *   Amount of capacity available for scheduling needs to be under operator policy.
  *   The use of scheduled resources if needed during a sudden change in traffic demand event or a complex (multiple nodes/links) failure event needs to be based on operator policy so as to protect against network destabilization.
  *   The choice of reserving immediately resources for future use or to book without reserving network capacity must be under the control of an operator. And both should be supported by the database (need to be able to distinguish).
  *   Section 2.5 "allows pre-emption". This was the first mention of pre-emption of current reservations to handle a scheduled reservation. There is no additional discussion e.g. priority, etc. Pre-emption is a complex subject and if it is allowed, more description is needed and it needs to be added that it is based on operator policy.
  *   Need to include network performance factors (maximum link utilization and residual capacity of the network) with respect to supporting scheduling and subject to operator policy.
  *   When you discuss re-optimization, you need to add this needs to be under control of operator policy as the stability of the network will be impacted.
  *   The OAM status of the reserved resources (alarms) must be available. Control of recalculations for the scheduled resources and notifications of the alarms needs to be subject to policy.

In the abstract, you say "This document provides a framework..discusses the architecture..". As this document is more than an architecture, I think the title should reflect it is a "Framework..".

You listed CPU utilization, memory, buffers of interfaces as resources that can be scheduled. As this draft is on TE LSPs, I didn't see the relation to these parameters (for RSVP-TE signaling or PCE use)?

In the acknowledgements, you list chen-teas-frmwk-tts and also list it in the references. As this earlier document was dated March 2016, it would be sufficient to list the authors as you have done, saying contributed to earlier version, but don't list the no longer existing document.

There are multiple instances where the English lacks in clarity and impacts the understanding. I've suggested improvements for multiple sentences, though the document needs a more careful review.

As I said, this is a complex problem space so don't take my comments negatively. I'll send a marked up document to the authors with my suggestions for appropriate sections to add text and improving clarity.

Thanks,
Deborah