IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [PCN] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-08

Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net> Wed, 22 June 2011 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9126611E80CE; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DsvST++YjooP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s24.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s24.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FAE11E807F; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP15 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s24.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:46:09 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [65.94.104.44]
X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP154C265676B0E7EA4E24C1D8500@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.2.17] ([65.94.104.44]) by BLU0-SMTP15.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:46:08 -0700
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 05:46:07 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
References: <1307728914.22973.2654.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> <9510D26531EF184D9017DF24659BB87F32DF7BF594@EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> <4DF7986B.5020108@dial.pipex.com> <33B5B2B1686A45B6A3739D9D9EB234C7@davidPC> <BLU0-SMTP7812F795389AD49E6A9DDFD8500@phx.gbl> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D08ADFF041B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D08ADFF041B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2011 09:46:08.0875 (UTC) FILETIME=[368A33B0:01CC30C1]
Cc: pcn@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, ietfdbh@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [PCN] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:49:15 -0000

The CL and SM drafts should definitely specify the information models. 
In my own mind, the actual protocol specification belongs in another 
document, since it would be common to the two models. Other edge 
behaviours (e.g. the piggybacking approach) would require their own 
protocol solutions.

Seriously, would Diameter make sense as the protocol? If so, the work is 
mostly done and I would just revive draft-huang-dime-pcn-collection and 
bring it up to date.

On 22/06/2011 2:21 AM, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> which work are you taking up?
>
> - specifying the madatory to implement protocol.
> - or specifying a minimum clear information model (RFC3444).
>
> I prefer the latter above the former.
>
>
>..

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email