Subject: [PCN] Consensus questions: Q4, Q5, and Q6

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:18:15 -0400

Here are the remaining three questions that were taken during the IETF
71 meeting:

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)?

According to the draft meeting minutes, Q4 was accepted 8-0 (my notes
have it as 6-0), Q5 was accepted 6-1, and Q6 was accepted 2-0.

Please send comments to the list during the next few days.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven Blake                <[email-masked]>
Ericsson/Redback Networks               +1 919-472-9913

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