[PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting

Steven Blake <steven.blake@ericsson.com> Fri, 14 March 2008 14:57 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 C6E7628C968; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.836, 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 P1xXo6jNh0bC; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3F728C919; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:55 -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 1E7F528C919 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:54 -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 ndney5Xq37z9 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C37728C918 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2EEsV3q022859 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:54:47 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.51]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:54:38 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([147.117.168.117]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:54:37 -0500
From: Steven Blake <steven.blake@ericsson.com>
To: pcn <pcn@ietf.org>
Organization: Ericsson IP Infrastructure
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:54:36 -0400
Message-Id: <1205506476.2992.34.camel@neutrino>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-1.fc8)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2008 14:54:37.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[53120760:01C885E3]
Subject: [PCN] Concensus questions from Thursday's PCN meeting
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

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