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

[<philip.eardley at bt.com>]

Thanks Georgios,

Comment 1:
I wrote in the document that extension encodings would either use the
baseline DSCP or "at most" a second dscp. You have in mind that an
extension encoding might use further DSCPs. I think 1 or 2 dscps
reflects all opinions that I've heard & all extension encodings proposed
so far.
Further, Steve's WG consensus call in March had
Q2: Should the PCN wg produce an experimental-track extension to the
    standards-track PCN scheme that requires another encoding state (for
    a total of three encoding states)?
Such an extension, I think, needs "at most a second DSCP".

So I'm inclined not to change the text.

I'm interested whether you have a specific idea for an extension
encoding that requires three DSCPs? (would like to see the proposal,
even if just a sketch)


Comments 2 (3 & 4 are very similar):
What's the reason behind this suggestion? The text describes the
admission control functions that have been talked about within the WG
(except for probing, which is covered later). Do you have specific
functions beyond ones that are already mentioned? Similarly for comment
3, do you have a particular example of another way that the admission
ctrl functionality could /should be distributed? 

I think if your motivation is that we should have as few restrictions as
possible - I'm inclined to disagree. The doc already talks about quite a
few different approaches for admission and termination. One of Lars's
criticisms of an earlier version of the architecture draft was that it
was too vague and hadn't narrowed down enough from the infinite spectrum
of possibilities. So I need more persuasion about comments 2-4.

Thanks
Phil/


{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
{ Georgios Karagiannis
{ Sent: 15 October 2008 08:17
{ To: pcn at ietf.org
{ Subject: Re: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
{ 
{ Hi Phil
{ 
{ 
{ I have read version 07 of the PCN architecture draft.
{ Thanks for trying to incorporate my last comments.
{ However, I think that some more clarifications are needed:
{ 
{ Comment_1:
{ Section 6, page 15:
{ Please remove the words "at most" that refers to the extension of
{ encodings:
{ 
{ Please change from:
{ "Extension encodings may be
{       defined that, at most, use a second DSCP .."
{ 
{ INTO:
{ 
{ "Extension encodings may be
{       defined that use a second DSCP .."
{ 
{ -----------------------------
{ 
{ 
{ Comment_2:
{ Section 7.4, page 23:
{ Please add the following combination of words to the following
sentence:
{  - (others might be possible)
{ Please change from:
{ "As well as the functions covered above, other specific admission
{    control functions need to be performed:"
{ 
{ INTO:
{ "As well as the functions covered above, other specific admission
{    control functions need to be performed (others might be possible):"
{ 
{ ------------------------------------
{ 
{ 
{ Comment_3:
{ Section 7.4, page 23:
{ 
{ Please change from:
{  "There are various possibilities for how the functionality could be
{    distributed (we assume the operator would configure which is
used):"
{ 
{ INTO:
{  "There are various possibilities (others might be possible) for how
the
{ functionality could be
{    distributed (we assume the operator would configure which is
used):"
{ 
{ -------------------------
{ 
{ 
{ Comment_4:
{ Section 7.5, page 24:
{ Please change from:
{ 
{ "As well as the functions covered above, other specific termination
{    control functions need to be performed:"
{ 
{ INTO:
{ "As well as the functions covered above, other specific termination
{    control functions need to be performed (others might be possible):"
{ 
{ Best regards,
{ Georgios
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ 
{ On 10/14/2008, "Steven Blake" <slblake at petri-meat.com> wrote:
{ 
{ >By my reading of the last call comments, the only remaining issue
where
{ >we have some disagreement is surrounding the terminology proposed by
{ >Michael Menth.
{ >
{ >Does everyone agree that this is the last remaining issue?
{ >
{ >If so, could we close on that this week?  Please send your commments
to
{ >the list ASAP.
{ >
{ >
{ >Regards,
{ >
{ >// Steve
{ >
{ >_______________________________________________
{ >PCN mailing list
{ >PCN at ietf.org
{ >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
{ _______________________________________________
{ PCN mailing list
{ PCN at ietf.org
{ https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn