Subject: [PCN] Replacing corrupted version of draft-charny-pcn-single-marking

From: "Anna Charny \(acharny\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:53:03 -0400

Hi all,

It appears that the version of the Single Marking draft that was sent
yesterday somehow got corrupted.  Please find the new version (it was
also reposted to the [email-masked], but will take some time
propagating).  Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:26:20 +0100

Anna

I read S4 of your doc, which is about how your draft impacts the
architecture draft [thanks for the specific section btw!]

My proposal would be to add to the arch draft into S5.6 (Flow
termination functions) another paragraph that says something like:

One particular proposal [ref] for PCN-marking and performing flow
admission and termination would require a global parameter (*) to be
defined on all PCN-boundary-nodes in the PCN-domain. [ref] discusses in
full the impact of this particular proposal on the operation of PCN.

OK?

(*) Nb global parameter = U in your draft.

(the Flow termination section seems the right place to include the
above, since it's the calculation of sustainable-aggregate-rate that's
changed by the U factor.)
(the impact on the measurement/reaction at the PCN-boundary-nodes is
really something for the draft(s) on boundary mechanisms to cover,
rather than the architecture draft.)

I don't think we need to add mention of the MARKING-MODE config
parameter - partly because as you say it can be deduced from the value
of U; mainly because having this parameter may suggest that several
marking modes are to be standardised, whereas we're trying to
standardise just one.

Thanks
Phil/  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anna Charny (acharny) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 July 2007 17:53
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [PCN] Replacing corrupted version of draft-charny-pcn-single-
> marking
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:14:39 +0100

Just to clarify. My intent is to include the suggested text below into
the architecture doc (S5.6)- please shout if you think this is not good!

Thanks
Phil

<< One particular proposal [ref] for PCN-marking and performing flow
admission and termination would require a global parameter to be defined
on all PCN-boundary-nodes in the PCN-domain. [ref] discusses in full the
impact of this particular proposal on the operation of PCN.>>

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 12 July 2007 13:26
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [PCN] Replacing corrupted version
ofdraft-charny-pcn-single-