Dear WG,
We had two feed-backs from co-authors ...
Anybody unhappy with that implicit assumption that we were talking
about normalized load? Please let us know before March 25 noon ET.
Thanks.
JP.
Begin forwarded message:
From: JP Vasseur <[email protected]>
Date: March 7, 2009 9:42:24 AM PST
To: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] Quick poll on draft-ietf-pce-of
Hi Adrian,
With a co-author "hat", although this has not been raised on the
list, it was implicit that we were talking about the normalized
load. In my opinion, the absolute load would not really be very
useful.
Thanks.
JP.
On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
During IESG review of draft-ietf-pce-of, the question was raised as
to whether OF 2 (Minimum Load Path) was using the normalised load
(i.e., the percentage of link bandwidth still available) rather
than the absolute load (i.e., the actual amount of bandwidth
available). I do not recall this question being raised on the list,
so please respond by saying
whether you are content with the current definition of OF 2
(normalised load), would like to change it to absolute load, or
would like to introduce a further OF for absolute load.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
