Subject: [PCN] Please comment on the comparison draft

From: "Anna Charny (acharny)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:35:25 -0500

Dear all,

We have just submitted the PCN Comparison draft.  Please take a look and
send us comments/suggestions.  We may still have a chance to send the
next version before the 01 deadline if necessary. We would like to
specifically ask the WG group to comment on the specific issue,
discussed below.

In Sections 11-14 we discuss the possibility of specifying a unified
(and so more complex) description of the pcn-internal-node behavior that
could, with an appropriate parameterization, support several of the
proposed approaches, and support several edge behaviors.  We would like
to poll the WG opinion on whether the benefits do (or do not) outweigh
the complexity, and - consequently - whether the WG does need to make a
choice between the different metering/marking behaviors or can go for
the unified behavior.

If we do end up wanting to make the choice, we would like to request
feedback on whether the choice can be made based on the available data
so far, or suggestions on additional criteria/evaluation.

Finally we do apologize that the draft does not currently discuss
draft-westberg-.  We will have to address this when the
questions/concerns on its operation raised on the list are resolved
(hopefully in the next version of draft-westberg).

Also, thanks to Phil Eardley for his useful comments to an early version
of the draft. 

Thank you,
Anna (on behalf of the rest of the authors)

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