Hi, I agree with Qin. There TE-metrics have been widely deployed and used in TE networks. The draft is simply exposing these metrics to the ALTO client.
Regards, Young From: alto [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:45 AM To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Gao Kai; Mirja Kühlewind; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [alto] [ippm] Cost metrics in draft-wu-alto-te-metrics Al, Your understanding is correct, this draft doesn’t intend to redefine these metrics. The definition of these metrics is not focus of this draft. -Qin 发件人: alto [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) 发送时间: 2016年7月21日 23:23 收件人: Gao Kai; Mirja Kühlewind; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [alto] [ippm] Cost metrics in draft-wu-alto-te-metrics Maybe I missed it, but the draft “names” many metrics, it doesn’t define them except in the most general way. No two entities could build comparable measurement systems that produce equivalent results with the specs in the draft. This is one main purpose of the registry. Al From: ippm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gao Kai Hi Mirja and all, Personally I think the metrics in draft-wu-alto-te-metrics can be registered to IPPM following the process introduced in the IPPM drafts. If there are already some metrics with similar definitions, draft-wu-alto-te-metrics can still define the corresponding cost-metric/cost-mode values uesd in ALTO and have the registered IPPM metrics as references.
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
