Re: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture

[<philip.eardley at bt.com>]

{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: Michael Menth [mailto:menth at informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de]
{ Sent: 02 October 2008 13:15
{ To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
{ Cc: pcn at ietf.org
{ Subject: Re: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
{ 
{ Hi Phil,
{ 
{ I still have concerns regarding the nomenclature in the current
version
{ of the architecture draft.
{ 
{ Take Figure 1 on page 10. The terms PCN-threshold-rate and
{ PCN-excess-rate are meaningful only in the CL deployment scenario
where
{ the reference rate for the threshold marker is the PCN-threshold-rate
{ and the reference rate for the excess marker is the PCN-excess-rate.
{ This is different for the SM deployment scenario where the reference
{ rate of the excess marker must be set to the PCN-threshold-rate. 

This is not correct. The rate of the excess marker is set to the
PCN-excess-rate. Fig 2 shows, for the Single Marking deployment
scenario, how this relates to admission /termination

Best wishes
Phil



How
{ funny is that? No, it's not funny - this is confusing and makes
further
{ explanations cumbersome and prone to misunderstandings. I think that
{ this is a bug that should be corrected before publication as these
terms
{ help to describe the core idea of PCN. Using the term admissible rate
{ instead of PCN-threshold-rate and supportable rate instead of
{ PCN-excess-rate decouples PCN rate thresholds from marking mechanisms.
{ They express the meanings of these thresholds within the PCN concept
{ which are denoted on the right side in Figure 1 and allow a much
clearer
{ presentation of the concept.
{ 
{ I hope my reasoning is clear. This document is not a working document
{ for a closed group where nomenclature has no importance as long as
{ everybody knows that we mean pears if we say apples - it's a reference
{ for others to learn about PCN and, therefore, technical terms should
be
{ precise and easy to remember.
{ 
{ Regards,
{ 
{     Michael
{ 
{ philip.eardley at bt.com wrote:
{ > {
{ > { There are some known edits that have to be made before we can
submit
{ > to
{ > { the
{ > { IESG:
{ > {
{ > { - Correct references to Internet Drafts to indicate "Work in
Progress"
{ > { - Fix formatting errors detected by ID-nits
{ >
{ > I just fixed these (I think) in
{ >
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-07.txt
{ > The only changes from 06 to -07 are to re-format some of the
references
{ > in order to fix the above 2 points.
{ >
{ > Phil
{ >
{ > Ps to see the -05 to -06 diffs:
{ >
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcn/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture/draft-ietf-pcn-
{ > architecture-06-from-05.diff.html
{ > or from http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcn/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture/
{ > _______________________________________________
{ > PCN mailing list
{ > PCN at ietf.org
{ > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
{ >
{ 
{ --
{ Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
{ University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
{ Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
{ phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
{ mailto:menth at informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
{ http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn