Lucy,
Figure 5 is specifically trying to show a different
flow.
In earlier figures, the source of a service request
is not shown. In general, however, one likely source for
a service request is an NMS.
I think the difference we may be trying to show in
figure 5 is that an NMS may act as a PCC on behalf of a
head-end that may not be a PCC itself.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Lucy Yong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:37 AM
--> To: 'Adrian Farrel'
--> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Subject: [Pce] RE: Comments about draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05
-->
--> Adrian,
-->
--> Let's put down the time-based reservation for now. I have
--> another comment
--> about the draft. In the Figure 5, it shows that NMS will
--> send request to PCE
--> directly to get the path information and send service request to the
--> head-end node. The request flow seems different from other
--> the four models.
--> Is it better to keep the consistency?
--> We could have NMS based service request to go head-end node
--> first and let
--> head-end node send request to PCE, thus all models will
--> have the same
--> message flows.
--> Does this make sense?
-->
--> Regards,
--> Lucy
-->
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Pce mailing list
--> [email protected]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
-->
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
