Subject: [PCN] "excess traffic marking" -> "excess marking"

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:40:00 +0100

Hi Phil and all,

I would like to propose to abbreviate the expression "excess traffic 
marking" into "excess marking". We also termed "PCN-excess-rate" and not 
"PCN-excess-traffic-rate" (to make the analogy to PCN-threshold-rate 
perfect). So renaming is required for consistency. I prefer to shorten 
the long expression instead of saying "PCN-excess-traffic-rate" because 
when we talk about marked traffic, then "excess-marked traffic" is more 
elegant to say than "excess-traffic-marked traffic". Apart from that, I 
do not know of any case that benefits from the longer expression.

Regards,

    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: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:24:57 -0000

the architecture draft is now under iesg review. i think this means it's now outside the WG review process. 

________________________________

From: Michael Menth [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sun 22/03/2009 22:40
To: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R; pcn
Subject: "excess traffic marking" -> "excess marking"

Hi Phil and all,

Regards,

    Michael

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:04:59 +0100

Hi Phil,

ok, that's just for the case the doc comes back and needs to be 
reworked. It's a small change anyway that does not modify any contents. 
Nevertheless, you could talk about the issue in SF whether people agree. 
The language of future docs will benefit.

Regards,

    Michael