Re: [Pce] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)

[Jari Arkko]

Thanks. This all makes sense.

Jari




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi Jari, 

Thanks for your comments, please see inline...

> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: 15 September 2016 12:53
> To: The IESG 
> Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aw...@ietf.org;
> pce-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Jari Arkko's Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> The document should probably say more about how frequently information can
> be updated and recomputation can occur; there's a possibility that too
> frequent adjustment creates a flip flop effect where traffic moves to a new
> path, performance degrades, etc.
> 
[Dhruv] I have added this text in the section 1 - 

   [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] describe various considerations regarding -

   o  Announcement thresholds and filters

   o  Announcement suppression

   o  Announcement periodicity and network stability

   The first two provide configurable mechanisms to bound the number of
   re-advertisements in IGP.  The third provides a way to throttle
   announcements.  Section 1.2 of [RFC7823] also describes the
   oscillation and stability considerations while advertising and
   considering service aware information.

> I was curious about the definition of the P2MP packet loss as being the 
> highest
> among the individual path losses. Is there some basis in some measurement
> documents for instance for this definition? It would seem to me that other
> definitions would also be possible, e.g., ones that take the aggregate loss
> into account in some fashion.
> 

[Dhruv]: I do not have a reference for this, it just made good intuitive sense 
to go this way during discussion with authors/WG while considering packet loss 
for P2MP TE. Other definitions are possible, and can be added by defining new 
OF/metric in future.   

Let me know if you would like to see further change. 

Regards,
Dhruv  

> 
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce