Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Sat, 24 March 2012 10:42 UTC

Message-ID: <201203241042.q2OAgCjX002850@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:42:11 +0000
To: karagian@cs.utwente.nl
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25A21@EXMBX04.ad.utwent e.nl>
References: <4F6A2736.8040403@gmail.com> <4F6A44C3.20506@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <4F6A4C7B.8050607@gmail.com> <4F6A69B8.6010601@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> <201203222258.q2MMwQfX029549@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4F6C5FD7.1000804@gmail.com> <201203232006.q2NK67VD000671@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25A21@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: pcn@ietf.org, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Subject: Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this time
Precedence: list

Georgios,

Indeed. I would have rather said *another* BA, not a *lower* BA. 
However, that would have changed rather than just clarified what 
RFC5559 originally said. Then it would probably not be allowed as an 
erratum and would instead require an update to the architecture RFC.

Ie., the proposed wording is not ideal, but it's expedient. I'd 
rather not risk the delay that would result if the erratum were rejected.

Cheers


Bob

BTW, I've changed the subject line to the thread I think this was 
intended to be part of - you had replied to one thread but talked 
about another.


At 21:44 23/03/2012, karagian@cs.utwente.nl wrote:
>From: <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
>To: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>, <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
>CC: <pcn@ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge behaviour  drafts
>Thread-Topic: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge behaviour  drafts
>Thread-Index: AQHNCTBy2u6oElcMeEuLAQY5k35KpJZ4aG96
>Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:44:44 +0000
>Message-ID: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F26C25A21@EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl>
>References: <4F6A2736.8040403@gmail.com>
>         <4F6A44C3.20506@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> 
> <4F6A4C7B.8050607@gmail.com>
>         <4F6A69B8.6010601@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
>         <201203222258.q2MMwQfX029549@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
> 
><4F6C5FD7.1000804@gmail.com>,<201203232006.q2NK67VD000671@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
>In-Reply-To: <201203232006.q2NK67VD000671@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Regarding the rephrased text:
>Police - drop or re-mark to a lower-priority behaviour aggregate
>       i) packets received with a DSCP indicating PCN transport that do not
>       belong to an admitted flow and ii) packets that are part of a flow
>       that asked to be admitted as a PCN-flow but was rejected.
>
>Why should we emphasize the it should be remarked to a 
>lower-priority behaviour aggregate?
>
>Is it acceptable to rephrase the text in the following way (another 
>instead of low-priority):
>Police - drop or re-mark to another behaviour aggregate
>       i) packets received with a DSCP indicating PCN transport that do not
>       belong to an admitted flow and ii) packets that are part of a flow
>       that asked to be admitted as a PCN-flow but was rejected.
>
>Best regards,
>Georgios

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

[PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge beha… Tom Taylor
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … Michael Menth
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … Tom Taylor
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … Michael Menth
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … Bob Briscoe
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … Tom Taylor
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … Bob Briscoe
Re: [PCN] Explanation of changes in the PCN edge … karagian
Re: [PCN] lets try again - a chair asking this ti… Bob Briscoe