Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-03.txt

Exptal DSCP seems OK to me, due to practical issues of releasing stds
dscps. I assume it's correct for the i-d to be stds track (it makes
sense to me, as the draft is more than just a dscp)

Also, my understanding is that the dscp assigned in
draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp is suitable for pcn (eg PCN
meets the requirements of S2.2 Capacity admission control). Not sure of
the progress of that doc though?

Best wishes
phil 

{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
{ Steven Blake
{ Sent: 19 May 2009 13:28
{ To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
{ Cc: pcn@ietf.org
{ Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-baseline-encoding-03.txt
{ 
{ On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 08:42 +0200, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote:
{ 
{ > Toby,
{ >
{ > to me your proposal to stay experimental is sound, but also the
{ > argument to have certain reserved DSCP values for PCN experiments
{ > is a good one.
{ >
{ > Maybe the chairs could provide some guidance on the best way to
{ > proceed?
{ 
{ I expect that getting one or more Pool 1 (standards-action) DSCP
values
{ assigned to PCN at this stage would be highly unlikely to happen.  So
as
{ mentioned before, we can choose some Pool 2/3 (experimental/local use)
{ values for experimentation and announce them to the world.
{ 
{ There may be some value in recommending certain "appropriate" DSCPs
for
{ use by flows/applications that can/should receive PCN treatment.  On
the
{ other hand, we assume flow classification at the edges, so it might
not
{ help that much.
{ 
{ 
{ Regards,
{ 
{ // Steve
{ 
{ _______________________________________________
{ PCN mailing list
{ PCN@ietf.org
{ https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn