Hi Jari, Thanks for your comments, please see inline...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: 15 September 2016 12:53 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org; > pce-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: > (with COMMENT) > > Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The document should probably say more about how frequently information can > be updated and recomputation can occur; there's a possibility that too > frequent adjustment creates a flip flop effect where traffic moves to a new > path, performance degrades, etc. > [Dhruv] I have added this text in the section 1 - [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] describe various considerations regarding - o Announcement thresholds and filters o Announcement suppression o Announcement periodicity and network stability The first two provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number of re-advertisements in IGP. The third provides a way to throttle announcements. Section 1.2 of [RFC7823] also describes the oscillation and stability considerations while advertising and considering service aware information. > I was curious about the definition of the P2MP packet loss as being the > highest > among the individual path losses. Is there some basis in some measurement > documents for instance for this definition? It would seem to me that other > definitions would also be possible, e.g., ones that take the aggregate loss > into account in some fashion. > [Dhruv]: I do not have a reference for this, it just made good intuitive sense to go this way during discussion with authors/WG while considering packet loss for P2MP TE. Other definitions are possible, and can be added by defining new OF/metric in future. Let me know if you would like to see further change. Regards, Dhruv > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce