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

[<philip.eardley at bt.com>]

{ >
{ > 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)
{ 
{ Georgios: This is associated with the possibility of using the
{ Affected marking encoding.
{ The answer on how many DSCPs will be used, will be asnwerwed by other
{ documents and not the PCN architecture draft.

Why would affected marking need a 3rd dscp? 2 dscps would seem to leave
plenty of room.

{ 
{ 
{ 
{ Georgios: The comments 2,3, and 4 are related to the discussion
{ regarding the HOSE model vs. ingress-egress-aggregate model.
{ 
{ The description in 7.4 and 7.5 talks only about the
{ ingress-egress-aggregate model.
{ 
{ You may work out commnets 2,3 and 4 and rephrase the text as you want
{ such that other models than ingress-egress-aggregate model are not
{ excluded.

Ok. I don't see why comment 3 (distribution of admission ctrl
functionality) applies. 
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn