Hi Wenhu, It was pointed out to me by my co-author that somehow I missed replying to your mail. Apologies for that.
See inline... On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Wenhu Lu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear authors, > > > > Following the presentation in IETF91, I would like to add several comments > below: > > > > o Which track: > > o Protocol and ability to define domain wide sequence is gaining > importance recently, and in particular when applied to the use-cases like > > § SDN controller > > · It will have to determine the set of entities and the order of them > in forming paths > > § In SPRING, the sequence can serve as input in source routing > > o I’m not sure if it’s too late. But I think this draft can be on the > standard track. As authors/editors, we do not have any strong opinion on this. We would love to hear from the WG if we should change track for the document to "standards track"? > > o Section 1 “The Domain-Sequence … out of scope” > > o I think this should be included as “in-scope”, or defined in a separate > document Updated in -07 version. > > § We can define strict and loose sequence > > · similar to RSVP EROs, loose or strict > > · In case of loose, it can be either > > o Administratively, giving admin/controller power/flexibility >] > § This may include Policy (Similar to RPL/ACL) > > § And if one wants to go non-conventional paths > > § Even H-PCE can be considered as in this category, as one has to decide > how to partition and arrange the tree > > o Automated > > § ABR/ASBR negotiation (capability and dependency) > > § There are drafts doing “lowest-cost” (similar to IGP’s shortest path) > algorithm - This draft supports Loose-Bit (L-Bit) in IRO as per the IRO specification update [http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-iro-update/]. So the above is supported and an implementation may set the L-bit based on any of these use cases. Do you see a need to discuss the above in the PCEP protocol specification document? If yes, perhaps you can provide some text that the WG can evaluate. > > o Typo: section 7.5 “and signaling message” should be “a signaling > message” > Thanks, updated in -07 version. Thanks again for your comments and sorry for my delayed response. Regards, Dhruv > > > Regards, > > -wenhu > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
