Subject: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-10 and draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-07

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:18:10 -0500

Howdy,

Both draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-09 and
draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-06 were updated since WGLC due to AD
comments.  Consequently, we will have an abbreviated WGLC for both
updated drafts, closing on Friday, Dec. 16.  Please send your comments
to the pcn list ASAP.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-10

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-07

Regards,

// Steve

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:39:10 +0100

Hi,

I just realized that our performance study of PCN-based admission 
control is not in the references of the document. It helps to understand 
the impact of the various parameters and the time it takes from emerging 
overload until flow blocking and contains various other performance 
aspects.

The following sentence may be added at the end of Section 3.3.1 of both 
documents:

A performance study of this admission control method is presented in 
[MeLe12].

9.2. Informative References
[MeLe12] M. Menth and F. Lehrieder: "Performance of PCN-Based Admission 
Control
under Challenging Conditions", accepted for IEEE/ACM Transactions on 
Networking, 2012

(for early, preliminary access: 
http://atlas2.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/menth/papers/Menth08-Sub-8.pdf)

Best wishes,

     Michael

Am 07.12.2011 16:18, schrieb Steven Blake:
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

-- 
Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto:[email-masked]
http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:52:25 -0500

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-07

Reminder - the WGLC closes on Friday.  Silence is interpreted as disinterest.

Regards,

// Steve

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:13:21 +0100

Hi Tom, hi Steven,

thanks to Tom for his ongoing enhancements of the document. You've done
a good job, I think.

The issue of reporting doesn't seem to be well addressed, I think. The
signaling method is out of scope of sm-edge beahviour. Applying
[I-D.tsvwg-rsvp-pcn] is optional. I'm in agreement with all that.
I'd like section 3.1 to state that:

  Specification of a signaling protocol to report rates to the
  Decision Point is out of scope of this document. If the
  PCN-ingress-node is chosen as the Decision Point, [I-D.tsvwg-rsvp-pcn]
  specifies an appropriate signaling protocol.

Regards,

Ruediger

Excerpts from the sm-edge-behaviour draft:

Section 3.1 states:

   The PCN-egress-node collects the rates of not-marked and excess-
   traffic-marked PCN-traffic for each ingress-egress-aggregate and
   reports them to the Decision Point.  For a detailed description, see
   Section 3.2

Section 3.2.2.  Reporting the PCN Data

   Unless the report suppression option described in Section 3.2.3 is
   activated, the PCN-egress-node MUST report the latest values of NM-
   rate and ETM-rate to the Decision Point each time that it calculates
   them.

Section 5.1.1.  Selection of Deployment Options and Global Parameters

   The first set of decisions affects the operation of the network as a
   whole.  To begin with, the operator needs to make basic design
   decisions such as whether the Decision Point is centralized or
   collocated with the PCN-ingress-nodes, and whether per-flow and
   aggregate resource signalling as described in [I-D.tsvwg-rsvp-pcn] is
   deployed in the network.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Steven Blake
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:52 AM
To: pcn
Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-10 and draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-07

Regards,

// Steve

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:09:24 +0000

Hi Steve, Hi all,

I am satisfied with the current versions of draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-10 and draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-07!
Tom thank you very much!

Best regards,
Georgios

> Sent: woensdag 14 december 2011 5:52
> To: pcn

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:44:11 -0500

Thanks. I'm willing to go with that.

Please note my new E-mail address. The old one expires on Jan. 12. Come 
to think of it, I'd better include the update when I recycle the drafts.

Tom Taylor
[email-masked]

>     aggregate resource signalling as described in [I-D.tsvwg-rsvp-pcn] is
...

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:32:18 -0500

> to think of it, I'd better include the update when I recycle the drafts.

Hi Tom,

If you are willing to accept Michael's comment as well, then I think
that would address all comments, and we can resubmit.

Regards,

// Steve

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:21:45 -0500

Yes, that's fine.

BTW, my new E-mail is [email-masked]

Big oops on the previous note.

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:46:58 -0500

Does this also apply to the SM document? (I expect so.)

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:57:20 +0100

Hi Tom,

yes, we have investigated both AC methods.

Regards,

     Michael