We currently appear to be involved in some sort of pre-fiat working group
process debate. Unfortunately, I think you're injecting a particularly
onerous and unnecessary sort of wg bureaucracy here, and for no discernible
reason. At this point, given the lack of any substantive technical
I am surprised by your tone.
I am touching the tech points and trying to clarity why PCE cannot *determine*
those parameters. You can correct me if I am wrong from the tech perspective.
If you still use this kind of tone, sorry, I will ignore your response.
Best Regards
Fatai
发件人: Edward
I'm surprised by your surprise. ^_^
Seriously though, I don't mean to offend you: I want to have a productive
discussion here. Most of the conversation in this thread thus far is about
either language, or whether the functionality is within the scope of the
charter. I believe one of our
Fatai,
On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Jan,
You said:
=By requesting a path computation from a PCE, the PCC gives the PCE authority
to determine the ERO, LSP Bandwidth, protection, LSP setup and hold priorities,
etc. The PCE is the entity that determines these parameters -
Hi Jan,
[RFC5440] says:
If the requested bandwidth is equal to 0, the BANDWIDTH object is optional.
Conversely, if the requested bandwidth is not equal to 0, the PCReq message
MUST contain a BANDWIDTH object.
I don’t think this means that PCE can set the bandwdith. All the paratermetes
In addition, I would like to remind that **set** != **delegation**, maybe
we stray a little from the point, J
Please clearly explain your perception of the difference.
** **
** **
** **
Best Regards
** **
Fatai
** **
*发件人:* Jan Medved (jmedved)
Fatai,
On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Jan,
[RFC5440] says:
If the requested bandwidth is equal to 0, the BANDWIDTH object is optional.
Conversely, if the requested bandwidth is not equal to 0, the PCReq message
MUST contain a BANDWIDTH object.
I don’t think this means
