Hi Spencer (CCAMP copied as well), Here is a link for everyone's convenience:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01.txt At IETF 80, there were questions about overlap with other CCAMP drafts containing interface delay metrics and proposals for new TE sub-TLVs. Have you or your co-authors, done looked at how your draft is positioned versus these other drafts? While these applications have differing goals, the CCAMP/OSPF chairs requested that this analysis be done. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt We would like to avoid having exactly the same information advertised in two different link Sub-TLVs. I'd hope we could agree on common units. Thanks, Acee On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Spencer Giacalone wrote: > Hello everyone, > > As you may have noticed, another version of the OSPF TE Express Path > draft has been posted. We made a number of changes based on feedback > from IETF 80. We invite your comments and suggestions. The main > changes include: > > -We have consolidated some sub-TLVs for efficiency. There are no > longer nominal and anomalous sub-TLVs for delay and loss. The > functionality for signaling steady state verses abnormal performance > for these parameters have been moved into two sub-TLVs (where we used > to have four). > > -In order to advertise both normal and abnormal network performance > state in consolidated sub-TLVs, a bit, called the anomalous (A) but > has been added to certain sub-TLVs. The A bit is set when the measured > value of a parameter exceeds a configured maximum threshold. The A bit > is cleared when the measured value falls below its configured reuse > threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV represents steady state > link performance. > > -We changed the encodings of certain variables from floating point to > fixed point. This change permits the addition of the A bit (when > necessary), it allows bit-space reservations to be made, and it > permits a common TLV format across the bulk of the TLVs in the draft. > In addition, the new encodings address concerns about granularity and > interoperability. > > -We added sub-TLVs for Residual Bandwidth and Available Bandwidth. > Residual bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus > the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. Available bandwidth > is defined to be residual bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used > for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. > > -Various other modifications were made across the draft. These > include, but are not limited to, the abstract, the introduction, the > thresholding specifications, and a number of field descriptions. > > -Last, but certainly not least, Stefano Providi has joined the draft > > We look forward to hearing your comments and concerns. > > Thanks, > > Spencer, Alia, Dave, John, Stefano > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
