Hi, Deborah/Dhruv, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 AM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Mirja, > > Yes, thanks Mirja for you detailed review. > > As Dhruv noted, this is not representing an average utilization, but the > current bandwidth utilization. As Dhruv noted, we could swap this sentence > in the Abstract for the term later used in section 4.2.2 "actual". For me, > though, current bandwidth utilization is a common (simple) term used often > by operational folks, and it has a time element clarification. The document > has been reviewed quite extensively by others, so I'm not convinced about > the need to change this sentence of the Abstract. We'll discuss it more > among the Chairs and authors. Mirja may be having a post-telechat beer, and this is for her ballot position, but I'm thinking that "time element clarification" is key here. If "current bandwidth utilization" is measured on a scale of minutes or larger, it usually doesn't freak out TSV folk, but if it's measured on a scale of single-digit seconds or smaller, it usually does. At least, it freaks me out. I spent most of the time I was responsible AD for one particular working group talking to them about how frequently they should be adjusting cost maps based on bandwidth utilization and other, basically instantaneous, transport metrics. The more frequently people make adjustments, the more likely you are to see oscillation between paths that you don't really want to see. For a distributed system, you're always basing decisions on something in the past that may have changed since you found out about it. I'll let Mirja take it from here on resolving her comment (because she might be talking about something completely different), but wanted to chime in, so that her comment doesn't become my comment, too. Thanks, Spencer
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
