Hi Mirja, 

See inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net]
> Sent: 16 September 2016 17:46
> To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3...@att.com>
> Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com>; Dhruv Dhody
> <dhruv.i...@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org;
> pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org;
> The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)
> Hi Deborah, hi Spencer,
> Spencer, thanks for adding on to this. Yes, that’s where my concern comes
> from.
> I know that this only tries to use what's already done in RFC7471 (OSPF)
> and RFC7810 (ISIS) but the wording is used differently there. Sorry for
> being picky but as this is actually only a wording issue it can probably
> be resolved easy. The point is RFC7471 and RFC7810 carefully only talk about
> the current measurement value (which could have been measured over a long
> time period - and therefore is an average for this measurement time period).
> Or the talk about the actual utilization compared to the reserved bandwidth
> which is actually what is probably meant here.
> What’s about the following change to the abstract:
> Either remove the brackets:
> "The link bandwidth utilization is another
>    important factor to consider during path computation.“
> Or write down what Dhruv actually said:
> „The link bandwidth utilization (the actual
>    bandwidth used without any reserved bandwidth) is another
>    important factor to consider during path computation.“

[Dhruv] I would not like to say "the actual bandwidth used without any reserved 
bandwidth" as "without" is problematic. The relationship is "in comparison 

I would like to keep text as - 

   "The link bandwidth utilization (the total
   bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another
   important factor to consider during path computation."

The "actual" has been used in RFC7471 / RFC7810 as in - 

   For a link or forwarding adjacency, bandwidth
   utilization represents the actual utilization of the link (i.e., as
   measured by the advertising node).

I hope this is okay?


> For other comments, please see may next mail in reply to Dhruv's mail.
> Mirja
> > Am 15.09.2016 um 18:10 schrieb BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3...@att.com>:
> >
> > Hi Spencer,
> >
> > This document is on how a PCE utilizes the IGP information of RFC7471
> (OSPF) and RFC7810 (ISIS). Both documents use the term “current” in their
> definitions. And also use “actual”. For this document, we don’t want to
> re-invent terms/definitions for already defined IGP information.
> >
> > Now I need to get to my “current” lunch before it’s not currentJ
> > (Thanks for all the interest!) Deborah
> >
> >
> > From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:43 AM
> > To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3...@att.com>
> > Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>; Mirja Kuehlewind
> > <i...@kuehlewind.net>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; Dhruv Dhody
> > <dhruv.i...@gmail.com>; pce@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on
> > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi, Deborah/Dhruv,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 AM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3...@att.com>
> 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

Reply via email to