Hi Alia, I guess I agree with Lou - heretofore, we've done TE requirements in the MPLS/CCAMP WGs and the TE encodings in the IGP WGs. I think we should give the decision explicit consideration before we branch off and do TE for application X independently. Additionally, if we do decide to split this off independently, an E-mail to the list saying there is no overlap is not sufficient to move forward. At a minimum, I believe we need to:
1. Explicitly document this alternate applicability and relationship to existing TE in the draft. 2. Determine whether any sub-TLVs can be shared (my opinion was consistent with yours that there are not due to differences in requirements and measurement). 3. Assure the sub-TLVs are appropriately named to avoid confusion between the latency applications. Thanks, Acee On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi Acee, > > John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP. It > had a large number of requirements and extensions to > a number of different protocols. There is one sub-TLV (latency) that > appears the same - but the expectations > as to averaging vs. instantaneous were different. > > The OSPF TE Express Path work is fairly self-contained and doesn't > specify in exact detail how the information > for the sub-TLVs is measured or obtained. I think it could be used > for multiple purposes. > > Alia > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
