Eric, Yeah, maybe state explicitly head-end that is not a PCC in this scenario.
Thanks, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: Lucy Yong; 'Adrian Farrel' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Pce] RE: Comments about draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05 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
