Hi Mirja, See inline...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 16 September 2016 17:46 > To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]> > Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]>; Dhruv Dhody > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > The IESG <[email protected]> > 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 to"... 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? Regards, Dhruv > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > > > 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:43 AM > > To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[email protected]> > > Cc: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>; Mirja Kuehlewind > > <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; Dhruv Dhody > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > 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 <[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
