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

["Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian at cs.utwente.nl>]

Hi Phil

Please see in line!
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: philip.eardley at bt.com [mailto:philip.eardley at bt.com] 
> Sent: woensdag 15 oktober 2008 12:09
> To: karagian at cs.utwente.nl; pcn at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
> 
> { >
> { > 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: It depends on how the specification of the encoding states 
will be standardised. 

> 
> {
> {
> {
> { 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. 

Georgios: You are right. If comment_2 is worked out, than comment_3 will
also be worked out!

Best regards,
Georgios


> 


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