Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3.
<toby.moncaster@bt.com> Thu, 20 March 2008 15:40 UTC
Return-Path: <pcn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F091F3A6E8E; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBIZ7rz2Zurn; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA0328C0F7; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72D53A67F2 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ctyfHyM5wQ55 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com (smtp1.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED013A6774 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E03MVZ4-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.63]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:38:05 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:38:07 -0000
Message-ID: <BAB4DC0CD5148948A86BD047A85CE2A705257091@E03MVZ4-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <1205860102.9521.27.camel@neutrino>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3.
Thread-Index: AciJGtmAr1YwA8NSQFu1ROhzaztYcgBhQO+g
From: toby.moncaster@bt.com
To: steven.blake@ericsson.com, pcn@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2008 15:38:05.0919 (UTC) FILETIME=[641EA6F0:01C88AA0]
Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3.
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Steven, Q1: Yes, I agree that we should initially aim to standardise a scheme that gives two encoding states. Q2: Yes, I agree that we should simultaneously produce one (or more) experimental extensions to provide a third encoding state. Q3: Yes, I think the PCN WG has sufficient information to make a decision on the way forward for a standards track PCN scheme. This should be done in parallel with working on the experimental extensions. Toby > -----Original Message----- > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Steven Blake > Sent: 18 March 2008 17:08 > To: pcn > Subject: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. > > Six consensus questions were taken during the IETF 71 > meeting. I would > now like to raise them on the list. I will do this in step-wise > fashion. > > Q1: As an initial standardization activity, should the PCN wg > produce a > standards-track PCN scheme that requires only two encoding states? > (Note: this question does not presume that the solution is Single > Marking). > > Q2: Presuming consensus in favor of Q1, should the PCN wg > produce one or > more experimental-track extensions to the standards-track > PCN scheme > that require another encoding state (for a total of three encoding > states)? > > Q3: Does the PCN working group have enough information to make a > decision about the way forward for the standards-track PCN scheme? > > By my notes, Q1 was accepted in the meeting 8-0, Q2 was accepted 9-0, > and Q3 was accepted 6-1 (but my notes are fuzzy on Q3's result). > > Please send comments to the list during the next few days. > > > Regards, > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Steven Blake <steven.blake@ericsson.com> > Ericsson/Redback Networks +1 919-472-9913 > > _______________________________________________ > PCN mailing list > PCN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn > _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
- [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [PCN] Consensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. philip.eardley
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. toby.moncaster
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Anna Charny (acharny)
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Steven Blake
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Jozef Babiarz
- Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3. Steven Blake