Subject: [PCN] draft-chan-pcn-problem-statement-00.txt discussion/issue list

From: "Kwok-Ho Chan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:51:16 -0400

Hi all:
As indicated in previous E-Mail concerning facilitating discussions of:
http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/draft-chan-pcn-problem-statement-00.txt

I have created a file listing the currently known discussion topics 
of this draft at:
http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/ProblemStatementDraftIssuesList.txt

Please let me know if there are additional concerns you would like to discuss,
I will add them to the list.

Please use the E-Mail Subject field guideline indicated in the file 
for discussion threads.

I have also included the content of the file at the end of this 
E-Mail for completeness.
But the content of this file will change over time, hence please always use
http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/ProblemStatementDraftIssuesList.txt
as the latest version and as the master.

Thanks!
-- Kwok --

Current content of the file:

PCN Problem Statement Draft Issues List
---------------------------------------

The purpose of this document and list is for:
1. Tracking the current open issues for
    draft-chan-pcn-problem-statement-xx.txt

2. Facilitate the discussion of these issues on
    [email-masked].
    For example, when discussing the
       "PCN-Region or PCN-Domain"
    issue,
    The subject field of the E-Mail sent to [email-masked]
    should be:
       "Issue A.1: PCN-Region Term"
    This will help people interested in following the
    discussion threads.

3. Track the resolution of these issues.

Hence this is a living document:
- new issues will/may be added.
- current issues may have their status/info updated.
- including closing of issues with resolution indicated.

Master copy of this document resides in:
http://standards.nortel.com/pcn/ProblemStatementDraftIssuesList.txt

The Issues List:

A. Terminology Issues.
    As most new WG/BOF have.
    One goal of picking the appropriate terminology is for
    their applicability to the deployment scenarios we know of.
    To facilitate the applicability to multiple deployment scenarios,
    we have adopted a FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION approach for terminology.

    1.  PCN-Region or PCN-Domain
        Calling this the "PCN-Region Term" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 2.1.
        RFC2998 supports use of Region, RFC2474 supports use of Domain.

    2.  PCN-Interior Node or PCN-Intermediate Node (PIN)
        Calling this the "PIN Term" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 2.1.
        RFC2475 supports use of PCN-Interior Node

    3.  PCN-End Node or PCN-Edge Node or PCN-Boundary Node
        Calling this the "PEN Term" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 2.1.

B. Environmental Issues.
    This relates to the environment PCN operates in.

    1.  How "many" flows are needed to provide accurate enough
        measurement at the PIN?
        Calling this the "Many flows at PIN" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 4.2.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Aggregate Traffic Characteristics.
        Solution to this issue most likely requires simulation and
        research work.

    2.  How "many" flows are needed to provide accurate enough
        measurement at the PEN?  If measurement is done at the PEN.
        Calling this the "Many flows at PEN" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 4.2.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Aggregate Traffic Characteristics.
        Solution to this issue most likely requires simulation and
        research work.

    3.  How "many" flows for PIN/PEN relationship.
        As one can see, the above 2 issues on "Many flows at
        PIN/PEN" are related, and may impact each other.
        Hence using this Issue as the thread for their interaction
        discussions.
        Calling this the "PIN+PEN Many flows" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 4.2.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Aggregate Traffic Characteristics.
        Solution to this issue most likely requires simulation and
        research work.

    4.  How should ECMP be handled?
        Does PCN need to operate in ECMP environment?
        Calling this the "ECMP" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   ECMP Routing.

    5.  How should Bi-Directional Sessions be handled?
        Calling this the "Bi-Directional Session" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Bi-Directional Sessions.

    6.  Is Speed of Reaction a concern?
        This relates to the time scales used for judging the
        accuracy of the algorithms used for the measurements.
        We should use this discussion/issue thread for the time
        scale requirement of the algorithms.  And may be related
        to the three "Many flows ..." issues above.
        Calling this the "Speed of Reaction" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Speed of Reaction.

    7.  Should Global Coordination be considered?
        This is more of a characteristic of Deployment Scenarios.
        But may have consequences on the more basic approaches.
        Calling this the "Global Coordination" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Global Coordination.

    8.  Should Aggregate Traffic Characteristics be specified as
        part of requirement?
        There is a possibility this can be combined with, or influence
        the "Many flows at PIN" Issue indicated earlier.
        Calling this the "Aggregate Traffic Characteristics" Issue.
        Reference: draft-chan-problem-statement-00.txt section 5
                   Aggregate Traffic Characteristics.

C. Standardization Issues.
    What should the proposed WG (hopeful result of the BOF) standardize?

    1.  Should measurement algorithm(s) at the PIN be standardized?
        And what criteria to use for judging these algorithm(s)?
        Calling this the "PIN Algorithm Standardization" Issue.

    2.  Should measurement algorithm(s) at the PEN be standardized?
        And what criteria to use for judging these algorithm(s)?
        Calling this the "PIN Algorithm Standardization" Issue.

D. Signaling Relationship Issues.
    What about signaling?
    Are there signaling requirements from the PCN work?
    How should they be fullfilled?

    1.  Just a general discussion thread for this for now.
        May have more detailed discussion threads later.
        Calling this the "General Signaling Requirement" Issue.

E. Draft Content Issues.
    This is for if additional types of content should be added to the
    Problem Statement draft or should some current content be removed?

    1.  Should Deployment Scenarios details be in the Problem Statment
        draft (in the appendix like RFC 3726)?
        Or should they be in their own respective drafts?
        Calling this the "Deployment Scenario in Problem Statement" Issue.

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn