Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting

Hi Steve,

Agreed with Toby's comments.  Fine with me otherwise.

Anna  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of toby.moncaster@bt.com
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:07 AM
> To: steven.blake@ericsson.com; pcn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
> 
> Mostly fine. 
> 
> Question 2 I believe we agreed to call it "one or more" 
> extensions at Georgios's request
> 
> Question 6 you need to highlight that we suggested IETF72 in 
> Dublin as being "in a timely fashion" for this new evidence.
> 
> Toby
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Toby Moncaster, <toby.moncaster@bt.com> Networks Research 
> Centre, BT B54/70 Adastral Park, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  +44 
> 1473 648734 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of 
> > Steven Blake
> > Sent: 14 March 2008 14:55
> > To: pcn
> > Subject: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
> > 
> > Greetings.
> > 
> > There were six concensus questions called during yesterday's PCN 
> > meeting.  Before we call the questions on the list, I want to 
> > paraphrase them and make sure that everyone agrees that 
> this captures 
> > the sense of the discussion.
> > 
> > 
> > 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: 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)?
> > 
> > Q3: Does the working group have enough information to make 
> a decision
> >     about the way forward for the standards-track PCN scheme?
> > 
> > Q4: Should the standards-track PCN scheme require (as a 
> MUST implement
> >     feature) that interior PCN routers support Excess-Rate marking,
> >     according to the particular method of handling already marked 
> >     packets and drops described in Anna Charny's presentation?
> >     http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/pcn-6.pdf
> > 
> > Q5: Should the standards-track PCN scheme require (as a 
> MUST implement
> >     feature) that interior PCN routers support Threshold marking (in
> >     addition to Excess-Rate marking), according to the 
> > particular method
> >     described in Philip Eardley's presentation on Tuesday?
> >     http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/slides/pcn-4.pdf
> > 
> > Q6: If presented with sufficient evidence in a timely fashion, would
> >     the PCN wg entertain the option of modifying the interior router
> >     Excess-Rate marking behavior for the standards-track PCN 
> > scheme (as
> >     described in question 4)?
> > 
> > 
> > Please send comments to the list.
> > 
> > 
> > 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 mailing list
PCN@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn