Re: [PCN] lets try again

I certainly think this is now in good shape to progress (but as I'm an author my opinion may be biased).

Toby

On 20 Mar 2012, at 16:37, "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu> wrote:

> please let the list know what you think
> 
> Scott
> 
> Scott O Bradner
> Senior Technology Consultant
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> 
>>> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:30:11 +0000
>>> To: "PCN IETF list" <pcn@ietf.org>
>>> From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
>>> Subject: New Version: draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt
>>> 
>>> PCN folks,
>>> 
>>> Following IESG review (particularly Adrian Farrel's being the most comprehensive and useful), we've posted a new version of the PCN 3-in-1 encoding.
>>> 
>>> As well as a number of editorial changes, some technical changes were needed in order to satisfy Adrian's request to specify exactly what an implementer has to do at the ingress to allow ECN to co-exist with PCN, and what defaults should be set to.
>>> 
>>> In particular, for a non-PCN packet (i.e. doesn't match any flow-state) that clashes with a PCN DSCP and is ECN-capable, the recommended choice of 3 is:
>>> 
>>>       *  re-mark the DSCP to a DSCP that is not PCN-compatible;
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       
>>> [...]                                                             
>>> In the
>>>       absence of any operator-specific
>>> configuration for this case, by
>>>       default an implementation SHOULD re-mark
>>> the DSCP to zero.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually, the whole of the ingress behaviour section (5.1) has been re-written, incorporating material that was previously repeated in both edge-behaviours (agreed with IESG and with edge-behaviour authors, of course). Altho it largely does the same thing technically, it is written to cover the complete range of possible scenarios, and it now gives defaults and recommended choices. I don't think it's controversial, but shout if it is.
>>> < http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09#section-5.1 >
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> 
>>> PS. Changes From draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-08 to -09:
>>> 
>>>       *  Added note about fail-safe to protect other traffic in the
>>>          event of tunnel misconfiguration.
>>> 
>>>       *  Changed section heading to be about applicability of
>>>          environments to the encoding, rather than the encoding to the
>>>          environments.
>>> 
>>>       *  Completely re-wrote PCN-ingress Node Behaviour section.
>>> 
>>>       *  Changed PCN interior node to PCN-node where the term was
>>>          intended to include all PCN-nodes.
>>> 
>>>       *  Clarified status of ECN/PCN co-existence appendix.  Removed
>>>          inconsistent assertion in this appendix that an admission-
>>>          control DSCP alone can indicate that arriving traffic is PCN-
>>>          traffic.
>>> 
>>>       *  A few clarifying editorial amendments and updated refs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>> To: <pcn-chairs@tools.ietf.org>,
>>>>         <draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding@tools.ietf.org>, <ietfdbh@comcast.net>,
>>>>         <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
>>>> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:52:23 -0700
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt
>>>> 
>>>> New version (-09) has been submitted for draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt.
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09.txt 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Diff from previous version:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-09 
>>>> 
>>>> IETF Secretariat.
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

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