Subject: [PCN] About CLE in edge behavior drafts

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:17:49 +0800

Hi all,
 
I recently noticed that in the latest edge behavior drafts the CLE is
calculated at the decision point rather than reported from the
PCN-egress-node. This is different from my understanding of the agreement we
made in IETF 76 meeting.
 
Here is the extract from the IETF 76 minutes.
 
<quote>
Tom outlined the history of the drafts - what is reported and when - and how
this has altered between the versions of the drafts.
 
Philip Eardley: Even in the CL case, the info about the actual level of CLE
is valuable.
 
Philip Eardley: Reporting info about all the rates is not much different
from reporting one bit, as it's in one message.
 
Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree with this now, so we
don't re-visit it again as though we agreed this last time.
 
No disagreement was expressed in the room.
 
Lars Eggert: Don't pre-process data, raw info is good or better for use
cases in the future don't know about now.  Don't cut off avenues.
</quote>

According to the minutes above, I think we agreed with Phil on two points:
1) CLE is valuable and should be reported to the decision point; 2) Rates
should be reported to the decision point and we don't re-visit the question
whether the rates should be reported or not.
 
And I think Lars agreed that raw info (i.e. rates) should be reported, but I
don't think Lars was against reporting the CLE from my understanding (at
least I don't see any resistance or response from Phil about not reporting
the CLE). But anyway, reporting the CLE will not cut off the avenues in the
future which Lars concerned, because the raw rates will also be reported.
 
So, to sum up, I think we agreed that both the CLE and rates should be
reported to the decision point according to the agreement.

Best regards,
Fortune

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:15 +0200

Hi Fortune,

CLE is a function of the rates. If the decision point has the rates, it 
can calculate the CLE by a rather simple operation. I do not see any 
point to carry redundant information. Do I miss a point?

Best wishes,

Michael

Fortune HUANG schrieb:
> PCN-egress-node. This is different from my understanding of the 
> agreement we made in IETF 76 meeting.
> Tom outlined the history of the drafts – what is reported and when – 
> and how this has altered between the versions of the drafts.
> Philip Eardley: Even in the CL case, the info about the actual level 
> of CLE is valuable.
> Philip Eardley: Reporting info about all the rates is not much 
> different from reporting one bit, as it’s in one message.
> Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree with this now, 
> so we don’t re-visit it again as though we agreed this last time.
> Lars Eggert: Don’t pre-process data, raw info is good or better for 
> use cases in the future don’t know about now. Don’t cut off avenues.
> </quote>
>
> According to the minutes above, I think we agreed with Phil on two 
> points: 1) CLE is valuable and should be reported to the decision 
> point; 2) Rates should be reported to the decision point and we don't 
> re-visit the question whether the rates should be reported or not.
> And I think Lars agreed that raw info (i.e. rates) should be reported, 
> but I don't think Lars was against reporting the CLE from my 
> understanding (at least I don't see any resistance or response from 
> Phil about not reporting the CLE). But anyway, reporting the CLE will 
> not cut off the avenues in the future which Lars concerned, because 
> the raw rates will also be reported.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
>   

-- 
PD Dr. habil. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new)
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:24:56 +0800

Hi Michael,

 I think CLE is a sufficient input to the decision point at least for flow
admission which happens much more often than flow termination. But of
course, we can also provide the raw rates as a complement if needed,
especially for flow termination.

So I think the CLE could be considered as a vital parameter in the report,
but the rates could be considered as optional parameters in case the
decision point needs more detail for some use cases or some deployment
scenarios.

Best regards,
Fortune

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Menth [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:42 PM
To: Fortune HUANG
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PCN] About CLE in edge behavior drafts

Hi Fortune,

CLE is a function of the rates. If the decision point has the rates, it can
calculate the CLE by a rather simple operation. I do not see any point to
carry redundant information. Do I miss a point?

Best wishes,

Michael

Fortune HUANG schrieb:
> Tom outlined the history of the drafts - what is reported and when - 
> different from reporting one bit, as it's in one message.
> Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree with this now, so 
> we don't re-visit it again as though we agreed this last time.
> Lars Eggert: Don't pre-process data, raw info is good or better for 
> use cases in the future don't know about now. Don't cut off avenues.
> </quote>
>

--
PD Dr. habil. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg,
Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room
B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new)
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn