ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PCN] Re: WG Review: Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification(pcn)

2007-02-28 08:32:51
Pekka,

[logical components being:] encoding and transport along forward 
path from marker to egress, metering of congestion information at 
the egress, and transport of congestion information back to the 
controlling ingress.

I'd like to see it explicitly stated that transporting congestion 
information in the (metered) IP packets themselves is out of scope. 

Forward transport of the basic congestion information has to be in
scope as Fred has pointed out.  Backwards transport needs to be scoped
by application scenario - for example, backwards transport via SIP
is clearly out of scope for the initial PCN work.  OTOH, not specifying
how to actually move any of this information around would turn PCN
into the moral equivalent an IRTF Research Group, which (IMHO) would
be bad - at the end of the day, PCN needs to produce something that
actually works (need "running code" in addition to "rough consensus").

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david(_at_)emc(_dot_)com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf