Subject: [PCN] PCN Marking behaviour draft

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:40:25 +0100

Hi

I've just posted a draft which tries to specify the marking behaviour
for PCN nodes.

It's based on an update of the emails I sent shortly before the last
IETF. Updates include adjusting as a result of the WG consensus call on
Steven's Questions 1 to 6. Many thanks to Joe, Michael & Anna who've
made suggestions and comments about it. Overall I think it's much
improved compared to the emails.

Comments please!

Thanks

Phil/.

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 29 April 2008 15:33
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour-00 

A new version of I-D, draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour-00.txt has
been successfuly submitted by Philip Eardley and posted to the IETF
repository.

Filename:   draft-eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour

Revision:   00

Title:            Marking behaviour of PCN-nodes

Creation_date:    2008-04-29

WG ID:            Independent Submission

Number_of_pages: 15

Abstract:

This document standardises the two marking behaviours of PCN-nodes:

threshold marking and excess traffic marking.  Threshold marking

marks all PCN-packets if the PCN traffic rate is greater than a first

configured rate.  Excess traffic marking marks a proportion of PCN-

packets, such that the amount marked equals the traffic rate in

excess of a second configured rate.Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this

document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

The IETF Secretariat.

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