Subject: RE: [Pce] New Proposed PCE WG Charter

From: "Richard Rabbat" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:51:04 -0800

Hi JP, Adrian,
 
In the updated proposed charter, you say:
- Definition of protocol-independent metrics defining path quality
measurement criteria and scalability criteria related to path computation
techniques.
 
Could you clarify what protocol(s) these metrics would be independent of?
 
I'm also confused about the sentence. Could you please clarify what you mean
by: 
-Definition of ... metrics defining ... criteria.
 
Thanks,
 
Richard.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of JP Vasseur
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Bill Fenner
Subject: [Pce] New Proposed PCE WG Charter

Dear list members,

First of all, thanks for various comments that we received from various
sources. Adrian and I have updated the proposed WG Charter, which reflects
those comments/suggestions. Obviously, further comments and feed-backs are
very welcome: having a proposed WG charter we all agree on before our second
BPF would be a good step.

Proposed PCE Working Charter and Milestones

WG items:

- Functional specification of MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineered LSP path
computation techniques involving Path Computation Element(s). This includes
the case of intra and inter-domain (where a domain might be a specific
layer, an IGP area or an Autonomous System) TE LSPs path computation and
applies to Point to Point and Point to Multipoint TE LSPs. Such path
computation techniques include primary, protection and recovery paths as
well as load balancing techniques.

- Specification of PCE-based architectures including centralized,
distributed and cooperative models.

- Specification of routing (OSPF, ISIS, BGP) and LSP signaling (RSVP-TE)
extensions required by PCE-based path computation techniques. 

- Specification of techniques in support of PCE discovery within and across
domains. Where such techniques result in the extensions of existing
protocols, this work will be done in conjunction with the appropriate WGs.

- Specification of new protocols or modifications to existing protocols to
facilitate communication between PCC (Path Computation Client) and PCE(s),
and between PCEs.

- Definition of protocol-independent metrics defining path quality
measurement criteria and scalability criteria related to path computation
techniques.

- Specification of requirements and protocol extensions related to the
policy, security and confidentiality aspects of PCE-based path computation
techniques involving PCEs of multiple administrative entities.

- Definition of MIBs and management procedures related to the new protocols,
protocol extensions and operational elements defined by the WG.

The WG will work closely with the following other WGs: CCAMP, MPLS, ISIS,
OSPF and IDR; and will also cooperate with the ITU-T and OIF where
appropriate.

Proposed WG Goals and initial Milestones (date to be determined)

Requirement drafts (multiple drafts may be expected coming various other WGs
and submitted to be PCE WG)

Finalize the PCE architecture document(s)
  
Identify and document a limited set of candidate solutions for PCC-PCE and
PCE-PCE signaling. Among candidate solutions to be considered are the
existing signaling protocols defined in other WGs.

Identify protocol extensions for PCE discovery

Thanks.

JP and Adrian.

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

---

From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:47:27 -0500

Hi Richard,

At 08:51 PM 11/7/2004 -0800, Richard Rabbat wrote:
>I'm also confused about the sentence. Could you please clarify what you 
>mean by:

The aim of this potential WG item was to define some metrics so as to be 
able to qualify a proposed PCE-based computation technique:
         - the quality of a computed path (ex: degree of optimality, ...)
         - the scalability of the solution (ex: computation time, 
signalling overhead, ability to handle burst of requests, ... )
         - ....

Hope that this clarifies.

Thanks for your comment.

JP.

>very welcome: having a proposed WG charter we all agree on before our 
>second BPF would be a good step.
>
><?smaller>Proposed PCE Working Charter and Milestones<?/smaller><?smaller>
>
>WG items:
>
>computation techniques involving Path Computation Element(s). This 
>includes the case of intra and inter-domain (where a domain might be a 
>specific layer, an IGP area or an Autonomous System) TE LSPs path 
>computation and applies to Point to Point and Point to Multipoint TE LSPs. 
>Such path computation techniques include primary, protection and recovery 
>paths as well as load balancing techniques.
>
>- Specification of techniques in support of PCE discovery within and 
>across domains. Where such techniques result in the extensions of existing 
>- Definition of MIBs and management procedures related to the new 
>protocols, protocol extensions and operational elements defined by the WG.
>
>OSPF and IDR; and will also cooperate with the ITU-T and OIF where appropriate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Requirement drafts (multiple drafts may be expected coming various other 
>WGs and submitted to be PCE WG)
>
><?/smaller>