That is my fault :-(
The I-D is at revision -03
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-03.txt
You still have until Monday next week if you want to make comments.
As my punishment, I have gone through Fabien's email to check which of his
coments still apply...
Below my comments on monitoring draft:
Section 3.1:
Example 3: The request must also contain a MONITORING object.
Issue stands.
Section 3.2:
The format of a PCReq message is as follows:
Must be
The format of a PCMonRep message is as follows:
Issue stands
Section 4.1:
Seems the first sentence is repeated twice.
Fixed in revision -03
Besides it is said that the Monitoring object MAY be included in
PCReq and PCRep so I think it would be good to add the enhanced
PCReq and PCRep BNF description.
Issue stands
Also in 4.1
s/PCEReq/PCReq/
General comment:
The in-band monitoring request is not fully clear to me.
If there are several path computation requests in the PCReq
which one is targeting?
i.e. Must the PCE return the processing time for each request seperatly
or a single processing time for all requests?
In first case what happens if there is an SVEC object and Path Requests
are spread in multiple PCRep messages. Must the Monitoring object be
repeated?
If a PCRep contains a Monitoring object, is it possible that
this PCRep contains Path replies not related to the Monitoring
request?
Issue stands.
Happy New Year
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
