Subject: [PCN] comments on signalling requirements draft

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:52:24 -0000

draft seemed quite nice to me - doing the job required i think
 
2.2 list of flow ids in the feedback of candidate flows for termination - 'may' rather than 'is'. 
 
2.3.6
text seems to contradict itself
 
2.4
dont see how ip address of decision point is relevant to filter spec
 
3
title - swap decision point and pcn-ingress-nodes
 
best wishes
phil

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:59:59 +0000

Hi Phil

Thank you very much!

Please see in line!

>2.2 list of flow ids in the feedback of candidate flows for termination - 'may' rather than 'is'.

Georgios: We will correct it!

>text seems to contradict itself

Georgios: I see what you mean. What we wanted to emphasize is that
reliability is a general signaling requirement. During previous
discussions we had a consensus that if a content is sent
regularly/peridocally then it is not useful to mandate that this content
should be sent reliably.
Will the following description satsify your concern:

---------------------

2.3.6 Reliability

   There are situations that PCN content needs to be sent in a
   reliable way, meaning that the PCN-egress-node MUST be acknowledged
   that the sent PCN content is successfully received by the
   decision point. However, when a PCN content is sent by a
PCN-egress-node
   in a regular fashion, then the reception of this PCN content does not
   need to be acknowledged by the decision point.
   This applies to the PCN egress feedback that is sent in a regular
   fashion. Therefore, it is considered that the PCN egress feedback
SHOULD
   NOT be sent reliably.

---------------

Question and open issue: We have not decided wheher the "list of flow
ids in the feedback" is sent in a regular fashion!
If it sent in a regular fashion, then we might signifficantly load the
network, since this list could be quite long. If it is not sent in a
regular fashion, should we then sent this PCN content in a reliable way?

>dont see how ip address of decision point is relevant to filter spec

Georgios: I think that it is useful when more than one decision points
are used within one domain. If we are considering that only one is used
then it should be removed.

>title - swap decision point and pcn-ingress-nodes

Georgios: Okay, we will do that!

Best regards,
Georgios

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