Subject: [PCN] SM Edge Behaviour Draft

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:19:28 +0200

Tom,

thanks for your work. The draft is clearer than the first version. I 
still miss details how to measure an IEA. That the "howto" is an 
issue isn't even mentioned in the draft.

Regards,

Ruediger

Some comments:

1.1 terminology and following cahpters

A new PCN node called "Policy Decision Point" is added to the architecture. 
The document does not explain where it is located and by which interfaces 
and priotocols it communicates. The draft text however seems to make this
PDP mandatory in some instances.

My personal take: remove the "Policy Decision Point" and all references to
it from this draft and write an experimental architecture draft explaining
the concept.

-----------------

3.1 Overview

2nd section: ..."measured rate of flow of unmarked..." 
replace by  "..measured rate of unmarked.." 

-----------------

3.2.1 PCN Egress Node Role in flow admission

new_CLE is the value of old_CLE during the next iteration, but the text 
doesn't state that. As you never know what an implementor understands 
from this text, the formula may be changed or text added.

"k" should be from  0 < k < 1. The text should state that.

Typo: Replace old-CLE/new-CLE by old_CLE/new_CLE

------------------

3.4 Possible Extensions to the basic algorithm

End of first section: "....is low (< 50 flows). "

If this holds independent of the flow size, leave as is. If it makes a 
difference whether these are voice calls or HD video streams, please 
explain "50 flows" in sufficient detail.

-------------------

4.7 Environmental Concerns

Please change the 2nd sentence

If the mechanism flow termination can't be enabled, signaling the 
corresponding state may be used to reduce traffic by other means 
like codec adaptation or the drop of low priority video frames.
This is however out of scope of the PCN WG.

-------------------

4.8 and 5. Security Considerations

Delete one section.