From fqhuang@huawei.com  Tue Apr 20 20:18:17 2010
Return-Path: <fqhuang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514113A6C1B for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.593
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.397,  BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553,  HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9K4ZFxcz8Ra4 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CD23A6C12 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L17003FXIHPGM@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pcn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:17:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L1700B42IHP5I@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pcn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:17:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from h36145c ([10.70.39.65]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L170040UIHP8Q@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for pcn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:17:49 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:17:49 +0800
From: Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com>
To: pcn@ietf.org
Message-id: <005b01cae101$3881fba0$4127460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_I9q+0dUmL66wfGBrU5rcqw)"
Thread-index: AcrhAThuN53jqh65Tyy8k48jaohLSQ==
Subject: [PCN] About CLE in edge behavior drafts
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:18:17 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_I9q+0dUmL66wfGBrU5rcqw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi all,
 
I recently noticed that in the latest edge behavior drafts the CLE is
calculated at the decision point rather than reported from the
PCN-egress-node. This is different from my understanding of the agreement we
made in IETF 76 meeting.
 
Here is the extract from the IETF 76 minutes.
 
<quote>
Tom outlined the history of the drafts - what is reported and when - and how
this has altered between the versions of the drafts.
 
Philip Eardley: Even in the CL case, the info about the actual level of CLE
is valuable.
 
Philip Eardley: Reporting info about all the rates is not much different
from reporting one bit, as it's in one message.
 
Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree with this now, so we
don't re-visit it again as though we agreed this last time.
 
No disagreement was expressed in the room.
 
Lars Eggert: Don't pre-process data, raw info is good or better for use
cases in the future don't know about now.  Don't cut off avenues.
</quote>
 

According to the minutes above, I think we agreed with Phil on two points:
1) CLE is valuable and should be reported to the decision point; 2) Rates
should be reported to the decision point and we don't re-visit the question
whether the rates should be reported or not.
 
And I think Lars agreed that raw info (i.e. rates) should be reported, but I
don't think Lars was against reporting the CLE from my understanding (at
least I don't see any resistance or response from Phil about not reporting
the CLE). But anyway, reporting the CLE will not cut off the avenues in the
future which Lars concerned, because the raw rates will also be reported.
 
So, to sum up, I think we agreed that both the CLE and rates should be
reported to the decision point according to the agreement.
 

Best regards,
Fortune
 
 
 
 
 
 

--Boundary_(ID_I9q+0dUmL66wfGBrU5rcqw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3676" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>I recently noticed that&nbsp;<SPAN 
class=805433002-21042010>in the latest edge behavior drafts </SPAN>the CLE is 
calculated at the decision point<SPAN class=805433002-21042010> rather than 
reported from the PCN-egress-node</SPAN><SPAN class=805433002-21042010>. 
This</SPAN>&nbsp;is different from&nbsp;<SPAN class=805433002-21042010>my 
understanding of </SPAN>the agreement<SPAN class=805433002-21042010> we made in 
IETF 76 meeting</SPAN>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Here is the extract from the IETF 76 
minutes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>&lt;quote&gt;<BR>Tom outlined the history of the 
drafts &#8211; what is reported and when &#8211; and how this has altered between the 
versions of the drafts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Philip Eardley: Even in the CL case, the info about 
the actual level of CLE is valuable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Philip Eardley: Reporting info about all the rates is 
not much different from reporting one bit, as it&#8217;s in one message.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree 
with this now, so we don&#8217;t re-visit it again as though we agreed this last 
time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>No disagreement was expressed in the 
room.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Lars Eggert: Don&#8217;t pre-process data, raw info is good 
or better for use cases in the future don&#8217;t know about now.&nbsp; Don&#8217;t cut off 
avenues.<BR>&lt;/quote&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>According to the minutes above, I think we agreed 
with Phil on two points: 1) CLE is valuable and should be reported to the 
decision point; 2) Rates should be reported to the decision point and we don't 
re-visit the question whether the rates should be reported or not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307;><FONT size=2>And I think Lars agreed that raw info (i.e. 
rates) should be reported, but I don't think Lars was against reporting the CLE 
from my understanding (at least I don't see any resistance or response from Phil 
about not reporting the CLE).<SPAN class=805433002-21042010> But anyway, 
reporting the CLE will not cut off the avenues in the future which Lars 
concerned, because the raw rates will also be 
reported.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307;><FONT size=2>So, to sum up, I think&nbsp;<SPAN 
class=805433002-21042010>we agreed that </SPAN>both the CLE and rates should be 
reported to the decision point<SPAN class=805433002-21042010> according to the 
agreement.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2>Best regards,<BR>Fortune</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=&#23435;&#20307; size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_I9q+0dUmL66wfGBrU5rcqw)--

From menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de  Tue Apr 20 22:42:36 2010
Return-Path: <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554713A6872 for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.351
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQPWg7zP4UYU for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.3.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085043A689D for <pcn@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from virusscan.mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43615AD13; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B70C5ACB6; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:24 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de
Received: from [192.168.8.143] (unknown [91.112.99.214]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EB605CEB1; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4BCE9037.1060700@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:42:15 +0200
From: Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Organization: University of Wuerzburg
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com>
References: <005b01cae101$3881fba0$4127460a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <005b01cae101$3881fba0$4127460a@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] About CLE in edge behavior drafts
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:42:36 -0000

Hi Fortune,

CLE is a function of the rates. If the decision point has the rates, it 
can calculate the CLE by a rather simple operation. I do not see any 
point to carry redundant information. Do I miss a point?

Best wishes,

Michael

Fortune HUANG schrieb:
> Hi all,
> I recently noticed that in the latest edge behavior drafts the CLE is 
> calculated at the decision point rather than reported from the 
> PCN-egress-node. This is different from my understanding of the 
> agreement we made in IETF 76 meeting.
> Here is the extract from the IETF 76 minutes.
> <quote>
> Tom outlined the history of the drafts – what is reported and when – 
> and how this has altered between the versions of the drafts.
> Philip Eardley: Even in the CL case, the info about the actual level 
> of CLE is valuable.
> Philip Eardley: Reporting info about all the rates is not much 
> different from reporting one bit, as it’s in one message.
> Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree with this now, 
> so we don’t re-visit it again as though we agreed this last time.
> No disagreement was expressed in the room.
> Lars Eggert: Don’t pre-process data, raw info is good or better for 
> use cases in the future don’t know about now. Don’t cut off avenues.
> </quote>
>
> According to the minutes above, I think we agreed with Phil on two 
> points: 1) CLE is valuable and should be reported to the decision 
> point; 2) Rates should be reported to the decision point and we don't 
> re-visit the question whether the rates should be reported or not.
> And I think Lars agreed that raw info (i.e. rates) should be reported, 
> but I don't think Lars was against reporting the CLE from my 
> understanding (at least I don't see any resistance or response from 
> Phil about not reporting the CLE). But anyway, reporting the CLE will 
> not cut off the avenues in the future which Lars concerned, because 
> the raw rates will also be reported.
> So, to sum up, I think we agreed that both the CLE and rates should be 
> reported to the decision point according to the agreement.
>
> Best regards,
> Fortune
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
>   

-- 
PD Dr. habil. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new)
mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn


From fqhuang@huawei.com  Wed Apr 21 00:28:47 2010
Return-Path: <fqhuang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28DE3A68CB for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.616
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.489,  BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553,  RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TTHkQAsMplFT for <pcn@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631473A6405 for <pcn@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L17009LSTXLQP@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pcn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:24:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L1700DPYTXK24@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pcn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:24:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from h36145c ([10.70.39.65]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L1700FKTTXKCG@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for pcn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:24:56 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:24:56 +0800
From: Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4BCE9037.1060700@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Message-id: <006f01cae123$be0f5020$4127460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: AcrhGArKj9Xa+cFhQdOcbXtzjhdHwwAB5qvg
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] About CLE in edge behavior drafts
X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>, <mailto:pcn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:28:47 -0000

Hi Michael,

 I think CLE is a sufficient input to the decision point at least for flow
admission which happens much more often than flow termination. But of
course, we can also provide the raw rates as a complement if needed,
especially for flow termination.

So I think the CLE could be considered as a vital parameter in the report,
but the rates could be considered as optional parameters in case the
decision point needs more detail for some use cases or some deployment
scenarios.


Best regards,
Fortune


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Menth [mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:42 PM
To: Fortune HUANG
Cc: pcn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PCN] About CLE in edge behavior drafts

Hi Fortune,

CLE is a function of the rates. If the decision point has the rates, it can
calculate the CLE by a rather simple operation. I do not see any point to
carry redundant information. Do I miss a point?

Best wishes,

Michael

Fortune HUANG schrieb:
> Hi all,
> I recently noticed that in the latest edge behavior drafts the CLE is 
> calculated at the decision point rather than reported from the 
> PCN-egress-node. This is different from my understanding of the 
> agreement we made in IETF 76 meeting.
> Here is the extract from the IETF 76 minutes.
> <quote>
> Tom outlined the history of the drafts - what is reported and when - 
> and how this has altered between the versions of the drafts.
> Philip Eardley: Even in the CL case, the info about the actual level 
> of CLE is valuable.
> Philip Eardley: Reporting info about all the rates is not much 
> different from reporting one bit, as it's in one message.
> Philip Eardley: Please can we confirm that we agree with this now, so 
> we don't re-visit it again as though we agreed this last time.
> No disagreement was expressed in the room.
> Lars Eggert: Don't pre-process data, raw info is good or better for 
> use cases in the future don't know about now. Don't cut off avenues.
> </quote>
>
> According to the minutes above, I think we agreed with Phil on two
> points: 1) CLE is valuable and should be reported to the decision 
> point; 2) Rates should be reported to the decision point and we don't 
> re-visit the question whether the rates should be reported or not.
> And I think Lars agreed that raw info (i.e. rates) should be reported, 
> but I don't think Lars was against reporting the CLE from my 
> understanding (at least I don't see any resistance or response from 
> Phil about not reporting the CLE). But anyway, reporting the CLE will 
> not cut off the avenues in the future which Lars concerned, because 
> the raw rates will also be reported.
> So, to sum up, I think we agreed that both the CLE and rates should be 
> reported to the decision point according to the agreement.
>
> Best regards,
> Fortune
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCN mailing list
> PCN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
>   

--
PD Dr. habil. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor University of Wuerzburg,
Institute of Computer Science Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room
B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/31-86632 (new)
mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn