Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-04 as Proposed Standard

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:26:57 +0100

Steve,

If we make 3-in-1 standards track, we will be using the EXP codepoint 
of baseline (5696) in a standards track doc, therefore, I assume we 
have to say 3-in-1 updates 5696.

This will have the effect of precluding anyone using EXP for other 
experiments.

(Except for local use,.. I guess and operator could specify it wants 
kit that complies with 5696 and not 3-in-1.)

But for interop, 3-in-1 would be the "one true way".

Is this what the wg wants?

Bob

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

---

From: "Toby Moncaster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:24:57 +0100

The only difference is that we are fixing on a meaning for the EXP
codepoint. In RFC5696 we specified that 

"   o  The 01 Experimental codepoint in the ECN field MAY mean PCN-marked
      or it MAY carry some other meaning.  However, any experimental
      scheme MUST define its meaning in the context of that experiment.

   o  If both the 01 and 11 codepoints are being used to indicate PCN-
      marked, then the 11 codepoint MUST be taken to be the more severe
      marking and the choice of which meter sets which mark MUST be
      defined."

So the change is that we are defining EXP as only being able to indicate
PCN-marked. We already had 11 being a more severe marking so that doesn't
create any conflict.

I would be keen to be able to preserve a coding that allows for a single
marking scheme as that is the easiest version of PCN. Is it possible to have
a standards track extension to a standard without updating the original
standard? After all we have already written this document to be compliant
with RFC5696.

If we are going to have 3-in-1 update RFC5696 that might mean we have to put
all the extra stuff from there into this document (rather more than minor
changes in other words).

Toby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Bob Briscoe
> Sent: 01 April 2011 09:27
> To: 'Steven Blake'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-04 as
> Proposed Standard
> 
> Steve,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:44:43 +0200

Hi,

is baseline encoding meant only for local use? If so, I do not see why 
it should not be possible to have two different standards for local PCN 
encodings. If baseline is defined for global use (not sure how this 
relates to ECN), then having two standards track docs about PCN encoding 
indeed seems to be a problem.

     Michael

Am 01.04.2011 12:24, schrieb Toby Moncaster:
>> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate&  Design
>>

-- 
Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www-kn.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de