Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3.

Hi Steven

Regarding Question Q1, I think that, from my point of view, it is Yes!

Before answering questions Q2 and Q3, I would like that 
some questions/comments should be clarified.

Question Q2:
I consider that an experimental-track extension for another 
PCN scheme that uses only two encoding states should also be allowed.
Is this option also included in the question.

Question Q3:
According to the current version of the PCN architecture, 
The PCN scheme should also be able to support the admission control and flow
termination
detection and handling (selection of the flows to be terminated) at the
egress.
SM and CL-PHB cannot support the handling (selection of the flows to be
terminated) 
at the egress. This means that such a PCN scheme should also be allowed,
i.e., as 
an experimental-track extension.

Furthermore, according to the previous discussions on the PCN mailing list, 
I think that care should be taken on the way of how preferential dropping is
used 
wthin the PCN domain. In other words, preferetial dropping of marked packet 
should not be mandated.

Best regards,
Georgios

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Steven Blake
> Sent: dinsdag 25 maart 2008 16:13
> To: pcn
> Subject: Re: [PCN] Concensus questions: Q1, Q2, and Q3.
> 
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 13:08 -0400, Steven Blake wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> We've heard from a few.  Does anyone else have comments?
> 
> 
> 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