Subject: [PCN] Comments about draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-04

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:03:38 +0800

Hi all,

In section 7 of draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-04, the "Other admission control
functions" and the "Other flow termination functions" are defined.

But I feel uncomfortable with the name of these two functions. Why "Other"
is used here?

I wonder if we could replace these two wordings with
"PCN-admission-control-node functions" and "PCN-flow-termination-node
functions".

In this way, it would be very convenient to refer to the two functions as
"admission-control node" and "flow-termination node".

Like the "ingress node" and the "egress node", the "admission-control node"
and the "flow-termination node" do not mean they have to be a stand alone
node.

In practice, the "ingress node" and the "egress node" are always deployed
with each other in the same boundary node.

And in the same way, the "admission-control node" and the "flow-termination
node" can be deployed in the boundary node, and can also be a stand alone
node.

When the "admission-control node" and/or the "flow-termination node" are
deployed in the boundary node, of course they co-locate with the "ingress
node" and the "egress node".

Best regards,
Fortune

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