[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-tewg-measure-04.txt: FINAL COMMENT

Hi Wai Sum,

Indeed, this is a well structured document. I found it is rather beneficial in setting out such a framework as one documented here as a system for it provides a set of common foundations (which now differs quite a bit from SP to SP) as we further our discussions in this area...

I just have a few minor comments listed as below after reviewing the document:
1. Tho defined in the IPPM framework, it would be probably make it a bit more clearer if active/passive measurement can be re-iterated at the beginning of section 4.
2. Sec 7, the end of the 2nd paragraph - is it probably too late to launch active measurement in an attempt to seek ways of redistributing the traffic in resolving local congestions after the fact (congestions) ? This is certainly not our current practice today.
3. Sec 9.1, LSP holding time... Perhaps it is worth mentioning here a "up" duration property to be introduced to each pair of label bindings in the LFIB from RSVP-TE, LDP or MP-BGP or BGP distributed labels. This way the value of this property can be gathered via passive means such that the derivation of LSP average holding time does not need to be finely correlated with network events.
4. Sec. 9.2, path establishment entities for MPLS TE maybe routing/signaling plane convergence dependent properties which may further be eschewed by FRR and preemptions. Path establishments shouldn't be frequent events in the network and I wonder if it is beneficial to have these entities collected and if it is even realistic to attain its statistical properties such as blocking due to insufficient event population... Not sure of this point.


Regards,
Raymond






At 03:38 PM 1/31/2003 -0500, Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS wrote:
Following on Jim's request, please review the TE Measurement draft,
which is currently under last call (terminates on Feb. 7).

About 20-30 people who attended the IETF-55 TEWG meeting indicated
that they planned to review the document when it went to last call.

Please indicate to the TEWG list that you have reviewed the document,
even if you have no comments of suggestions.

Thanks, Wai Sum

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:53 AM
To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: RE: Weak turnout : FINAL COMMENT (? :)



I think we've discussed an important topic.  We have over a lots of
people
on this list, we should have a good participation on subjects such as
revision of drafts that have past last call and are with the IESG, or
drafts that are in last call.  Even for drafts that are earlier in the
development cycle, more perspective is a good thing.

That said, reminder:  draft-ietf-tewg-measurement-04.txt is currently
under last call until Feb 7th.

thanks,

Jim