Subject: [Pce] Progress with the architecture draft

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:49:43 +0100

All,

The editors are shortly to work on revising the architecture draft. We
have a bunch of comments received at and since Minneapolis that we need to
incorporate.

It has also been pointed out that we could usefully work on the
definitions to ensure that they are clear within the context of PCE.

Lastly, we need to do some work to distinguish architectural models and
functional/operational models. Largely speaking, this is a case of showing
the component decomposition, and how this decomposition may be used
operationally and how it would be perceived by PCCs and PCEs in the
system.

Before we start on the revision it would be great if you could all send
your comments on the current version so that we can include them.

Thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: 清水 隆雄 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:40:16 +0900

Hi, All

I have 2 comments for the PCE Architecture I-D.

1)   Stateful vs Stateless

     I think PCE should be stateful basically.
     And 2 options for Stateful;
      Option-1 is Link  State (Trap event: up/down/congestion)
      Option-2 is Full Link State (Option-1 + Link Usage Rate by FEC)

2)  Metrics requirement

     For inter-domain operetion, metrics model should be consistent
     through domains.
     As for FEC, TOS(PRI) 8 Level classification may be better.

Best　Regards

T.S.