Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-08

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

I missed the wording change on the definition of U. I thought there 
should have been a change, but failed to find the right E-mail.

We did make changes based on the ECMP issue.

On 12/03/2012 2:28 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> I am very confused about the state of this.  My skimming of the thread seems to indicate at least one unresolved issue.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
>> The clarification on U is very helpful.  I look forward to comments from others on the routing based behavior / ECMP text removal / replacement question.
>>
>> On 1/2/2012 12:58 PM, Michael Menth wrote:
>>> Hi Joel, hi Tom,
>>>
>>> Am 02.01.2012 18:18, schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
>>>> Michael, I am not sure what to make of your recommended text abut ECMP.
>>>> ECMP is used by almost all operators. It is generally considered a
>>>> necessary tool in the tool-kit.
>>>> More significantly, at least for the egress understanding of the
>>>> ingress, it is not even the single operator's ECMP, but other
>>>> operators selections of paths that produce the issue. So even in the
>>>> unlikely event that this operator does not use ECMP, it still is not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> Then I better leave the ECMP issue for others to answer.
>>>
>>> The definition of U can be better corrected as follows (improved
>>> rewording of my previous email):
>>>
>>> U represents the average ratio of PCN-supportable-rate to
>>> PCN-admissible-rate over all the links of the PCN-domain.
>>> ->
>>> U is a domain-wide constant which implicitly defines the
>>> PCN-supportable-rate by U*PCN-admissible-rate on all links of the PCN
>>> domain.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>>
...