Re: A query related to state of the DS-TE (sol) draft

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

A revision is expected in the next few weeks (hopefully real time, not
standards time).  We will be submitting it as a WG document per the last
meeting.  If there are WG members (on the list) that weren't at the
meeting who are opposed to it as a WG document, now would be a good time
to voice your oppinion.

regards,

Jim


On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Choudhury, Sanjaya wrote:

>
> Hi Francois,
>
> Just wanted to find out about your plans for the DS-TE
> solution draft. Do you have any specific time frame in
> mind, for posting the next rev. of the draft ?
>
> Thanks,
> sanjay
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Choudhury, Sanjaya [mailto:Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 3:26 PM
> > To: 'te-wg@ops.ietf.org'
> > Subject: More comments/questions on DS-TE solution draft
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi! Here are few additional comments related to the DS-TE solution
> > draft.
> >
> > 1. Probably the draft should explicitly spell out that there
> > has to be a
> >    well-defined relationship between the BCs and LOMs, to make the
> >    whole thing work.
> >
> >     Specifically, for the "Russian Doll"  BC model, the draft should
> >     spell out the exact relation between CTs/BCs & LOMs.
> > 	some thing like:
> > 	a. Count :  Total number of LOMs == Total number of BC/CT??
> > 	b. Value  : LOM[m] < LOM[n] , where m	> n   ??     or
> >      		    BCm * LOM[m] < BCn * LOM[n] , where m > n ??
> >
> > 2. It may not be bad idea to rename the term "Class-Type" as
> >    "Bandwidth_Class" [Bw_Class/Bw_pool/Any term that is little
> >     more descriptive.].
> >     Reasons:
> > 	a) The term Class-Type is non-descriptive.
> > 	b)  In future, people may un-intentionally misuse (overload)
> > 	the term.
> >
> > 3. It will be helpful, if the draft spells out any domain
> > level restrictions
> >     /recommendations that the user should keep in mind. For example:
> > 	a) Is it necessary for the number of CTs to be same in
> > 	all the links of all LSRs in the DS-TE domain ?
> > 	b) Does the CT identifier have to be consecutive in nature ?
> > 	c) Is it necessary that _all_ the LSRs in the domain MUST
> > 	support DS-TE.
> > 	    if it is not necessary then :
> > 		i) What should be the behavior if a LSR that
> > 		does not support the signaled (or inferred) CT ?
> >
> > 4. How can a LSR distinguish between the DS-TE and non DS-TE
> >     bandwidth advertisement (DS-TE re-uses the existing constructs
> >     to advertise the available bw in a CT+priority basis) ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > sanjay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
> delete this message from your system. Do not copy this e-mail or any
> attachment, use the contents for any purposes, or disclose the contents to
> any other person: to do so could be a breach of confidence.
>