Subject: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 10:41:53 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: No Objection

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-teas-scheduled-resources/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One question: I think I don't understand how the proposed framework would
interact with non-Time-Scheduled reservations or reservations that support TS
but don't know their end-time. If you have such reservations, you basically
already need to block the resources of all future scheduled reservations
because you don't know how long the requested unbounded reservation is needed,
which could also lead to an non-optimal resource  scheduling. Could you please
clarify this in the document or further elaborate/acknowledge this problem in
the doc?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 19:23:47 +0100

Hi Mirja,

> because you don't know how long the requested unbounded reservation is
> needed, which could also lead to an non-optimal resource  scheduling. Could
> you please clarify this in the document or further elaborate/acknowledge 
> this problem in the doc?

You nailed it, and this "non-optimal" use of resources is exactly why resource
scheduling is proposed in the first place.

We can certainly add text on the operation of a system where some LSPs are
scheduled while other are not.

Cheers,
Adrian