Subject: [PCN] Consensus call: moving draft-chan-pcn-encoding-comparison-00 to working group document

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:25:07 -0400

PCN,

During the Chicago PCN meeting, the authors of
draft-chan-pcn-encoding-comparison-00 asked that this draft become a
working group document.  Based on the discussion in the room, the PCN
chairs determined that there was no consensus amongst the meeting
participants to move this version of the draft to a working group
document at this time.  There was a comment made that if certain
simplifications were made in the next version of the draft (e.g.,
reducing the amount of text on marking semantics and concentrating on
syntax), then the draft then would be ready to move to working group
document.  The chairs asked the authors to consider this approach.  More
details of the discussion will be available when the meeting minutes are
posted.

This email is a request for comments on moving
draft-chan-pcn-encoding-comparison-00 to working group document.  Please
send your comments to the list within the next week.

Scott & Steve

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

_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

---

From: "Anna Charny \(acharny\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:46:36 -0400

Hi,

It is my understanding that the authors are committed to make changes
and simplifications and resend the draft to the list.  In my opinion it
is worth waiting till the new version comes out before making it a
working group document.

Thanks,
Anna 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Blake [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:25 AM
> To: pcn
> Subject: [PCN] Consensus call: moving 
> draft-chan-pcn-encoding-comparison-00to working group document
> 
> PCN,
> 
> draft-chan-pcn-encoding-comparison-00 asked that this draft 
> become a working group document.  Based on the discussion in 
> the room, the PCN chairs determined that there was no 
> consensus amongst the meeting participants to move this 
> version of the draft to a working group document at this 
> time.  There was a comment made that if certain 
> simplifications were made in the next version of the draft 
> (e.g., reducing the amount of text on marking semantics and 
> concentrating on syntax), then the draft then would be ready 
> to move to working group document.  The chairs asked the 
> authors to consider this approach.  More details of the 
> discussion will be available when the meeting minutes are posted.
> 
> draft-chan-pcn-encoding-comparison-00 to working group 
> document.  Please send your comments to the list within the next week.
> 
> 
> Scott & Steve
>

---

From: Bruce Davie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:05:10 -0400

I think the draft needs so much revision at this point that I would  
rather wait for the next version before deciding if it is ready to be  
a WG document.

Specifically, the draft needs to avoid replicating so much material  
from other sources. Almost everything in sections 1 and 2 should be  
removed. The place to define or discuss PCN motivation, terminology,  
architecture, etc., is in other drafts (such as the architecture  
draft). This draft should only reference other drafts. If the authors  
think they need some new terminology, I would urge them to get the  
architecture team to include it in their draft.

This draft should consist of statements like "The approach to PCN  
described in [Reference] requires N distinct packet markings  
(codepoints). These codepoints could be encoded in the following ways:
   - encoding A
   - encoding B

etc.

And then discuss the tradeoffs among the different encoding approaches.

The authors should be careful to distinguish between the state of a  
*node* and a marking of a *packet* (e.g. a node might be in a  
severely congested state, in which case it wants to be terminating  
some flows, leading to some marking of packets with a "terminate"  
marking. But note that a node will often generate several different  
markings while in a given state, hence states and markings are not  
equivalent.) I think the attempt to make this distinction was what  
led to the notion of "features" which most people (including me)  
seemed to find confusing.

This looks like a pretty major rewrite to me.

Bruce

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:02:57 +0200

I agree with Anna.

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:28:53 +0000

Hi Anna, Hi all

Yes we are committed to make changes and simplifications ans resend the
draft to the list.

Best Regards,
Georgios