Hi CCAMP'ers.
Following the CCAMP meeting in Beijing, I have run a quick check on
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-04. As a PCE co-chair, my main concern
is about section 4.4 at large: it explicitly focuses on PCE whereas I am
not sure so much detail is relevant to a CCAMP I-D (even though
informational). What are the plans about this section while moving forward?
Furthermore, here are some comments about some other sections mentioning
PCE or PCEP:
--------------------
Page 8
----------
"Note, the IA path computation may also take place in a separate entity,
i.e., a PCE."
Typo on "i.e.": should be replaced by "e.g." (or else clarification is
required).
It is not clear what "separate" refers to; proposed rewording:
"computation may also take place in an entity which is different from
the signaling head node, e.g. using PCEP".
--------------------
Page 9
----------
"The authority in control of the "black links" can provide a PCE that
performs full IA-RWA services. The difficulty is this requires the one
authority to also become the sole source of all RWA optimization
algorithms and such."
The phrases "the one authority" and "the sole source" suggest that
uniqueness is assumed, clarification is required.
--------------------
Page 13
----------
"if the path computation entity (PCE) [...] if the PCE is given..."
The acronym "PCE" is locally used with a different meaning from what is
defined in the introduction of the document. It seems more appropriate
to write the full phrase "path computation entity" in this section.
--------------------
Regards,
Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
