Subject: Re: [PCN] ITU-T liaison letter

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:13:25 -0400

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 23:45 -0400, Steven Blake wrote:

> ITU-T has asked the PCN working group for a response to their liaison
> letter
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/461/
> 
> by September 1.  Needless to say, there hasn't been much discussion on
> the mailing list.  Please read the statement and send any comments by
> Friday.

I still haven't seen any discussion on this, so I am drafting a liaison
letter to ITU-T.  In outline:

- It will point out that 2-state marking will be standards track, while
  3-state marking will be experimental track.

- It will give updated status on the architecture draft.

- It will mention that the PCN working group has not made progress on
  defining an egress router -> ingress router protocol (the Rc interface
  in their document).

- It will mention that determining the ingress router for a packet based
  on topology information will only work in very narrow circumstances.
  One possible alternative ITU-T is to define an interface from the
  PD-PE to the egress router to establish classification state.

- It will ask for clarifications on the Rp interface.  Does the TRC-PE
  send requests to the TRC-FE over this interface, and if so, what 
  kinds?

Please send any comments ASAP.

Regards,

// Steve

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