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

From: "Spyros Kontogiorgis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:25:23 -0700

Thumbs up from me for the doc. Glad to see some of
my suggestions incorporated.

Spyros Kontogiorgis.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

---

From: raymond zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 12:58:20 -0800

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:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:53 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>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

---

From: "Chia-Feng Kang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:30:30 +0800

Dear all,
  I am a new member in traffic engineering field.
  I have reviewed the draft. Although I am still unfamiliar with some 
specific aspects, I think that the draft is on-target for TEM milestone.

Best Regards,

Chia-Feng Kang
WIRE Lab/CS/NTHU/TW
[email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 00:59:03 -0500

I have reviewed this document and contributed material. I'm happy to see
it go forward.

Nick

> From: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:39 PM
> To: Jim Boyle; [email-masked]
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Subject: draft-ietf-tewg-measure-04.txt: FINAL COMMENT
>