Subject: [PCN] Feedback to http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-03.txt

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:42:13 +0200

Hi all,

I know that the current focus of this list is more on the problem 
statement and the charter. However, as I have recently read the drafts, 
I'd like to share my thoughts with you before lectures start in October 
and make me more busy than I am now.

As I mentioned in previous emails, I consider the technical contents 
very good, but its presentation could be simplified such that also 
non-experts get its basic ideas right at first reading. A slightly more 
precise terminology also helps although I am also already used to the 
current nomenclature.
* I tried an alternative wording of the summary given in Section 1.1 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-03.txt 
and hope that I understood the draft correctly. This might be useful to 
tell people quickly what kind of network admission control (NAC) the PCN 
list is currently concerned with.
* I tried to outline the salient features of the NAC to point out why 
the solution is good (Simplicity, Scalability, Robustness).

I send these issues in two extra emails.

Best regards,

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-9From [email-masked] Fri Sep 22 09:41:53 2006
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:42:13 +0200
From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Organization: University of Wuerzburg
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PCN] Feedback to
	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-03.txt
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi all,

I know that the current focus of this list is more on the problem 
statement and the charter. However, as I have recently read the drafts, 
I'd like to share my thoughts with you before lectures start in October 
and make me more busy than I am now.

As I mentioned in previous emails, I consider the technical contents 
very good, but its presentation could be simplified such that also 
non-experts get its basic ideas right at first reading. A slightly more 
precise terminology also helps although I am also already used to the 
current nomenclature.
* I tried an alternative wording of the summary given in Section 1.1 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-03.txt 
and hope that I understood the draft correctly. This might be useful to 
tell people quickly what kind of network admission control (NAC) the PCN 
list is currently concerned with.
* I tried to outline the salient features of the NAC to point out why 
the solution is good (Simplicity, Scalability, Robustness).

I send these issues in two extra emails.

Best regards,

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:54:42 +0100

Thanks! 
I basically like your Summary & your comments on simplicity,
scalability, robustness. 
Will comment on some detailed points when back on-line [away next week],
if they haven't already been covered. 
Best wishes,
Phil 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Menth [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 22 September 2006 14:42
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PCN] Feedback
tohttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architectur
e-03.txt

Hi all,

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-cl-architecture-
03.txt 

Best regards,

    Michael