Hi, The current definition of OF 2 (normalized load) is good enough.
Young (co-author) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Pce Digest, Vol 55, Issue 9 Send Pce mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Pce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RFC 5440 on Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) ([email protected]) 2. I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-path-key-06.txt ([email protected]) 3. Quick poll on draft-ietf-pce-of (Adrian Farrel) 4. Re: Quick poll on draft-ietf-pce-of (JP Vasseur) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:45:35 -0800 (PST) From: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] RFC 5440 on Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5440 Title: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) Author: JP. Vasseur, Ed., JL. Le Roux, Ed. Status: Standards Track Date: March 2009 Mailbox: [email protected], [email protected] Pages: 87 Characters: 190529 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-19.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440.txt This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to [email protected]. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 02:00:01 -0800 (PST) From: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-path-key-06.txt To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 16:04:59 -0000 From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] Quick poll on draft-ietf-pce-of To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <853f528147a149fd81e8921d3dd22...@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Hi, During IESG review of draft-ietf-pce-of, the question was raised as to whether OF 2 (Minimum Load Path) was using the normalised load (i.e., the percentage of link bandwidth still available) rather than the absolute load (i.e., the actual amount of bandwidth available). I do not recall this question being raised on the list, so please respond by saying whether you are content with the current definition of OF 2 (normalised load), would like to change it to absolute load, or would like to introduce a further OF for absolute load. Thanks, Adrian ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 18:42:24 +0100 From: JP Vasseur <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Quick poll on draft-ietf-pce-of To: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Hi Adrian, With a co-author "hat", although this has not been raised on the list, it was implicit that we were talking about the normalized load. In my opinion, the absolute load would not really be very useful. Thanks. JP. On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > During IESG review of draft-ietf-pce-of, the question was raised as > to whether OF 2 (Minimum Load Path) was using the normalised load > (i.e., the percentage of link bandwidth still available) rather than > the absolute load (i.e., the actual amount of bandwidth available). > I do not recall this question being raised on the list, so please > respond by saying > whether you are content with the current definition of OF 2 > (normalised load), would like to change it to absolute load, or > would like to introduce a further OF for absolute load. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce End of Pce Digest, Vol 55, Issue 9 ********************************** _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
