Skip to main content

Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
RFC 5541

Yes

(David Ward)
(Ross Callon)

No Objection

(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-01-15)
Section 4., paragraph 4:
>    - residual bandwidth on link L is denoted r(L)
>    - maximum reservable bandwidth on link L is denoted R(L).

  I assume that r(L) is the residual bandwidth that is available for
  reservation and not the instantaneous available capacity on a link,
  correct?


Section 5., paragraph 3:
>      Type 5 (suggested value to be assigned by IANA) : Load of the most
>      loaded link.

  Similar to my previous comment, does load here refer to the
  (normalized) amount of reserved capacity, or to actual instantaneous
  load levels? If the latter, what are the timing/accuracy bounds on
  that information, and how are they guaranteed?


  Document needs to be spell-checked.

(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-01-14)
Abstract:

The abstract is fairly long and seems to be more an introduction than a abstract.

Section 6.1:

One of the data entries of the PCE Objective Function registry is Defining RFC. Considering that you have FCFS policy that allow any registrations then "Defining RFC" may not be the best column name. Reference and contact Person seems to be what should be present. Where Contact Person for the Consensus part is not required, but Reference is, and the the FCFS where Reference is recommended(?) and Contact is required. 

I would also note that IETF consensus does not longer exist as policy in RFC 5226, it is called IETF Review instead.

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()