From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Oct 19 23:45:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@ietf.org Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id EC86F3A69C3; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20101020064501.EC86F3A69C3@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification Working Group of the IETF. Title : Requirements for Signaling of (Pre-) Congestion Information in a DiffServ Domain Author(s) : G. Karagiannis, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2010-10-19 Precongestion notification (PCN) is a means for protecting quality of service for inelastic traffic admitted to a Diffserv domain. The overall PCN architecture is described in RFC 5559. This memo describes the requirements for the signaling applied within the PCN domain: PCN feedback is carried from the PCN-egress-node to the decision point and the decision point may demand for the measurement and delivery of the PCN rate sent at the PCN-ingress-node. The decision point may be either collocated with the PCN-ingress-node or a centralized node. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-10-19234417.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Tue Oct 19 23:58:29 2010 Return-Path: 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 B50163A69CA for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:58:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.919 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 94ZTwZHZou6V for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9603A698B for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.cs.utwente.nl (janus.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.26]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id o9K6xm7Z002143; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:59:48 +0200 (MEST) Received: from 84.82.109.231 (auth. user karagian@imap1.ewi.utwente.nl) by webmail.cs.utwente.nl with HTTP; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:59:48 +0000 To: sob@harvard.edu, slblake@petri-meat.com Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:59:48 +0000 X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.13 (On: webmail.cs.utwente.nl) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101020064501.EC86F3A69C3@core3.amsl.com> From: "Georgios Karagiannis" Bounce-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" Errors-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:59:57 +0200 (MEST) Cc: "pcn@ietf.org" Subject: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:58:29 -0000 Hi Steve, Hi Scott, Hi all Based on the comments received up to now and based on the last versions of: draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-07 and draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-04 we updated the signaling requirements draft. In my opinion we can start the WG Last Call for this draft! Best regards, Georgios On 10/20/2010, "Internet-Drafts@ietf.org" wrote: >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directori= es. >This draft is a work item of the Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification = Working Group of the IETF. > > >=09Title : Requirements for Signaling of (Pre-) Congestion Informa= tion in a DiffServ Domain >=09Author(s) : G. Karagiannis, et al. >=09Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt >=09Pages : 10 >=09Date : 2010-10-19 > >Precongestion notification (PCN) is a means for protecting quality of >service for inelastic traffic admitted to a Diffserv domain. The >overall PCN architecture is described in RFC 5559. This memo >describes the requirements for the signaling applied within the PCN >domain: PCN feedback is carried from the PCN-egress-node to the >decision point and the decision point may demand for the measurement >and delivery of the PCN rate sent at the PCN-ingress-node. The >decision point may be either collocated with the PCN-ingress-node or >a centralized node. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01= txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. From slblake@petri-meat.com Thu Oct 21 07:27:23 2010 Return-Path: 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 84A173A69C5 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:27:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.093 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.506, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 6ilY4ipsb5Y9 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elom.tchmachines.com (elom.tchmachines.com [208.76.80.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77283A6990 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpe-174-097-227-047.nc.res.rr.com ([174.97.227.47]) by elom.tchmachines.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8w8S-0007dN-7K; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:28:52 -0400 From: Steven Blake To: Georgios Karagiannis In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:28:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1287671332.2758.9.camel@tachyon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 (2.28.3-1.fc12) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - elom.tchmachines.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - petri-meat.com Cc: "pcn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:27:23 -0000 On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 06:59 +0000, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: > Hi Steve, Hi Scott, Hi all > > Based on the comments received up to now and based on the last versions > of: > draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-07 and > draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-04 we updated the signaling > requirements draft. > > In my opinion we can start the WG Last Call for this draft! Ok, thanks Georgios. The WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01 starts today, concluding Thursday, Nov. 4. Please send comments to the pcn list. Regards, // Steve From root@core3.amsl.com Thu Oct 21 20:30:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcn@ietf.org Delivered-To: pcn@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 4F7D93A6826; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20101022033003.4F7D93A6826@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.txt X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:30:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification Working Group of the IETF. Title : Pre-Congestion Notification Encoding Comparison Author(s) : K. Chan, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.txt Pages : 38 Date : 2010-10-21 Pre-congestion notification (PCN) is a link-specific and load- dependent packet marking mechanism for Differentiated Services networks. The packet markings are evaluated by egress nodes of PCN domains and the result is used for admission control and flow termination decisions. Two different types of markings have been defined. This document gives a summary of the marking requirements, the constraints to encode them in the current IP header (version 4 and above), and it explains why the PCN WG currently supports different encoding schemes for PCN marking. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-10-21201941.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Thu Oct 21 20:42:35 2010 Return-Path: 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 194D53A684D for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:42:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 W5vC1d5I+crL for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2FC3A672E for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.cs.utwente.nl (janus.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.26]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id o9M3hxYZ013884 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:43:59 +0200 (MEST) Received: from 84.82.109.231 (auth. user karagian@imap1.ewi.utwente.nl) by webmail.cs.utwente.nl with HTTP; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:44:00 +0000 To: "pcn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:43:59 +0000 X-Mailer: IlohaMail/0.8.13 (On: webmail.cs.utwente.nl) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20101022033003.4F7D93A6826@core3.amsl.com> From: "Georgios Karagiannis" Bounce-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" Errors-To: "Georgios Karagiannis" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:44:08 +0200 (MEST) Subject: Re: [PCN] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.txt X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:42:35 -0000 Hi all A new version (03) of the draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison has just been submitted. We (and especially Kwok) implemented severeal modifications compared to version 02, please see below: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03 Best regards, Georgios On 10/22/2010, "Internet-Drafts@ietf.org" wrote: >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directori= es. >This draft is a work item of the Congestion and Pre-Congestion Notification = Working Group of the IETF. > > >=09Title : Pre-Congestion Notification Encoding Comparison >=09Author(s) : K. Chan, et al. >=09Filename : draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.txt >=09Pages : 38 >=09Date : 2010-10-21 > >Pre-congestion notification (PCN) is a link-specific and load- >dependent packet marking mechanism for Differentiated Services >networks. The packet markings are evaluated by egress nodes of PCN >domains and the result is used for admission control and flow >termination decisions. Two different types of markings have been >defined. This document gives a summary of the marking requirements, >the constraints to encode them in the current IP header (version 4 >and above), and it explains why the PCN WG currently supports >different encoding schemes for PCN marking. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-03.tx= t > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. From sob@harvard.edu Sat Oct 23 08:54:17 2010 Return-Path: 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 5E9B83A676A for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:54:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.28 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 eVhn8LYkY8sX for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A793A67F2 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 87FCB59DCEE; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:55:53 -0400 (EDT) To: pcn@ietf.org Message-Id: <20101023155553.87FCB59DCEE@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:55:53 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Subject: [PCN] no agenda items for Beijing X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:54:17 -0000 we have not received any requests for agenda time in Beijing so it seems like we should cancel the pcn session - I will do so tomorrow unless someone decides there is actually something to talk about Scott From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Mon Oct 25 05:43:32 2010 Return-Path: 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 4AF8F3A67FB for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:43:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.966, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] 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 lJMdTOw6W7bH for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8233A67D4 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o9PCixv2009561; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:45:02 +0200 (MEST) From: "Georgios Karagiannis" To: "'Scott O. Bradner'" References: <20101023155553.87FCB59DCEE@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:44:55 +0200 Message-ID: <88BA281E4FA342268699122C3D6FA3DC@dynamic.ewi.utwente.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 In-Reply-To: <20101023155553.87FCB59DCEE@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Thread-Index: ActyytHbarIUi572TZK4dgd+T6mAggBdqGYA X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:45:11 +0200 (MEST) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] no agenda items for Beijing X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:43:32 -0000 Hi Scott Unfortunately I cannot attend the IETF meeting this time! The draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements and draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison have been updated and submitted! In particular, draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01 is under WGLC. Regarding draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison, if needed I can provide some slides to emphasize the differences from its previous version! Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner > Sent: zaterdag 23 oktober 2010 17:56 > To: pcn@ietf.org > Subject: [PCN] no agenda items for Beijing > > > we have not received any requests for agenda time in Beijing > so it seems like we should cancel the pcn session - I will do > so tomorrow unless someone decides there is actually > something to talk about > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > PCN mailing list > PCN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn > From philip.eardley@bt.com Tue Oct 26 03:12:41 2010 Return-Path: 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 AE7E13A6778 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:12:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 B+6HL7AYXgDf for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp61.intersmtp.COM [62.239.224.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3C03A6925 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHT67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.104) by RDW083A005ED61.smtp-e1.hygiene.service (10.187.98.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:14:14 +0100 Received: from EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.1.25]) by EVMHT67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.104]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:14:26 +0100 From: To: , Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:14:24 +0100 Thread-Topic: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? Thread-Index: ActxLFDbmAOTZlfvRiW5k3vg3T9VVQDyiOgQ Message-ID: <4C22FF8FA5626046BF68899C06A0C9F7113512156C@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <1287671332.2758.9.camel@tachyon> In-Reply-To: <1287671332.2758.9.camel@tachyon> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:12:42 -0000 Unfortunately the doc seems to need a lot of work to me.=20 * It repeats a lot of the edge behaviour docs. If i get it right, this doc = is supposed to be *just* about the signalling (the requirements for signall= ing) - the edge node behaviour docs talk about the *content* that is signal= led. To take just one example: o S2.2 starts by listing what the PCN-egress-node measures - but this doc s= hould be about reports - reporting the info that's been measured (reference= edge behaviour doc for details of what is measured) o The list anyway doesn't match the edge behaviour docs (CLE may or may not= be calculated by PCN-egress-node) * There are some new security considerations that i don't agree with. See b= elow.=20 * The terminology should consistently re-use what has already been defined = in our RFCs and what is defined in the edge behaviour docs. See below.=20 * The sub-section headings of S2 & S3 should match. This might help S3 to b= e re-written more clearly.=20 * S3.3 is untrue. 3.2 & 2.3.6 are different [at least]=20 * S2.2: I don't think report suppression should be mentioned here as a comp= ulsory feature. This is to do with specific signalling examples (CL, SM) an= d not a general feature required of all imaginable PCN edge signalling. Rep= ort suppression is a feature of the edge behaviour. At most this doc should= say something like "A report may either be sent periodically, every time t= he PCN-egress-node measures the various rates, or else may be sent occasion= ally (see "optional report suppression", for instance in [ref]) * S2.2, concatenating the flow Ids raises too many issues on format, order,= what a flow ID is etc. Delete * The phrasing needs to be better in several places, eg the abstract, the l= atter part of para 1 & para 2 of Intro.=20 * Also S2.3.3 "The signaling protocol MUST be able to carry identification = (address information) of the PCN edge nodes." -> "The signaling protocol MU= ST carry the identity of the PCN-egress-node that sends the message." The r= est of the section can be deleted. Similar comment about 2.3.4. S2.3.5 can = be shortened to "The load generated by the signaling protocol SHOULD be min= imized.".=20 * S3 is hard to understand. It can be much shorter; similar to S2 it should= be confined to signalling; something like "Request - response signalling i= s used" would clarify it.=20 * S2.1 title - delete "PCN". Delete last sentence [nothing to do with the s= ub-section] * S2.2, title, delete "Signalled" * S2.4 something here needs to be capitalised.=20 Question: S1, para 2, here and elsewhere you say the signalling is "towards= " the decision point. Why don't you say "to" the decision point? Is this b= ecause you're thinking the msg could piggy-back on some existing signalling= (like rsvp)? If yes, i think it would be better to spell this out specific= ally: <> Security I don't see why msg authentication & integrity, anti-DOS measures are a SHO= ULD. The base assumption of PCN architecture is that PCN operates within a = trusted domain, ie all nodes in the domain are trusted. So it's ok providin= g the msg comes from an interface internal to the PCN-domain. I don't understand the msg confidentiality bullet. When would PCN signallin= g msgs be visible to non-autorsied nodes; and if there is such a case, wher= e is msg confidentiality only a MAY? The reqt surely is that msgs don't lea= k out of the PCN-domain - which should be easy since msgs are sent to the P= CN-boundary-node's address Replace S2.3.7 with something like the following:- The PCN architecture [ref] assumes that all PCN-nodes are PCN-enabled and t= rusted to operate correctly. In the context of this document: * PCN-signalling messages MUST NOT leak out of the PCN-domain (+) * PCN-boundary-nodes MUST validate the signalling messages, to avoid that t= hey come from an attacker (*) (+) should be easy, since msgs are sent to the PCN-boundary-node's address (*) one way is simply: does the msg arrive on an interface internal to the = PCN-domain? If yes, it isn't from an attacker, since all PCN-nodes are trus= ted Terminology * consistently use terminology from 5559: PCN-traffic, PCN-ingress-node, PC= N-egress-node ETC etc * use terminology from the edge behaviour docs - PCN-sent-rate, NM-rate, ET= M-rate, THM-rate, CLE could all be re-used (and CLE is badly defined here) * decision point, delete "of course" * PCN egress feedback - definition could be better. I think the "feedback" = is the report (not the "content") "A report sent by the PCN-egress-node to = the decision point; it reports measurements made by the PCN-egress-node tha= t inform decisions about flow admission and flow termination" * PCN ingress feedback - similar. Also, does the report ever include anythi= ng other than PCN-sent-rate? * "A report sent by the PCN-ingress-node to the decision point; it reports = measurements(*) made by the PCN-ingress-node that inform decisions about fl= ow termination" (*) or "the measurement of PCN-sent-rate" * I'd delete "Ingress rate request". It's easy to refer to this as a reques= t for PCN ingress feedback Best wishes phil -----Original Message----- From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve= n Blake Sent: 21 October 2010 15:29 To: Georgios Karagiannis Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 06:59 +0000, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: > Hi Steve, Hi Scott, Hi all >=20 > Based on the comments received up to now and based on the last versions > of: > draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-07 and > draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-04 we updated the signaling > requirements draft. >=20 > In my opinion we can start the WG Last Call for this draft! Ok, thanks Georgios. The WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01 starts today, concluding Thursday, Nov. 4. Please send comments to the pcn list. Regards, // Steve _______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn From sob@harvard.edu Tue Oct 26 05:05:24 2010 Return-Path: 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 5D40C3A694C for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 tBz6ktI08gvO for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977613A6958 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id B65AC5B2490; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:07:03 -0400 (EDT) To: pcn@ietf.org Message-Id: <20101026120703.B65AC5B2490@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:07:03 -0400 (EDT) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Subject: [PCN] no pcn session in Beijing X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:05:24 -0000 I sent in a request to cancel the pcn session in Beijing since no one seemed to want to talk about anything Scott From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Wed Oct 27 02:15:49 2010 Return-Path: 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 A2E943A6905 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:15:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.859, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] 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 FAMepPf1nwDR for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7B03A67E1 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ewi977 (ewi977.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.12.129]) by denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o9R9HMRx007306; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:17:25 +0200 (MEST) From: "Georgios Karagiannis" To: , References: <1287671332.2758.9.camel@tachyon> <4C22FF8FA5626046BF68899C06A0C9F7113512156C@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:17:17 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4C22FF8FA5626046BF68899C06A0C9F7113512156C@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-index: ActxLFDbmAOTZlfvRiW5k3vg3T9VVQDyiOgQADAMM+A= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (denhaag.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.11]); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:17:35 +0200 (MEST) Cc: pcn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? X-BeenThere: pcn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: PCN WG list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:15:49 -0000 Hi Phil Thank you very much for the comments! I will provide detailed answers later on, but now I would like to emphasize that regarding the signaling draft the WG have had agreed on the following: The PCN content that was specified in the current WG boundary behaviour drafts will be the PCN content that needs to be signaled between the PCN edge nodes and the decision point. Thus what the signaling draft currently is doing is listing the PCN content that is specified in the CL and SM edge behaviour drafts and based on this content it specifies requirements on how signaling protocols should be used to signal this content between the edge nodes and the decision point! Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: philip.eardley@bt.com [mailto:philip.eardley@bt.com] > Sent: dinsdag 26 oktober 2010 12:14 > To: slblake@petri-meat.com; karagian@cs.utwente.nl > Cc: pcn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [PCN] WGLC for > draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? > > Unfortunately the doc seems to need a lot of work to me. > > * It repeats a lot of the edge behaviour docs. If i get > it right, this doc is supposed to be *just* about the > signalling (the requirements for signalling) - the edge node > behaviour docs talk about the *content* that is signalled. To > take just one example: > o S2.2 starts by listing what the PCN-egress-node > measures - but this doc should be about reports - reporting > the info that's been measured (reference edge behaviour doc > for details of what is measured) > o The list anyway doesn't match the edge behaviour docs > (CLE may or may not be calculated by PCN-egress-node) > * There are some new security considerations that i don't > agree with. See below. > * The terminology should consistently re-use what has > already been defined in our RFCs and what is defined in the > edge behaviour docs. See below. > * The sub-section headings of S2 & S3 should match. This > might help S3 to be re-written more clearly. > * S3.3 is untrue. 3.2 & 2.3.6 are different [at least] > * S2.2: I don't think report suppression should be > mentioned here as a compulsory feature. This is to do with > specific signalling examples (CL, SM) and not a general > feature required of all imaginable PCN edge signalling. > Report suppression is a feature of the edge behaviour. At > most this doc should say something like "A report may either > be sent periodically, every time the PCN-egress-node measures > the various rates, or else may be sent occasionally (see > "optional report suppression", for instance in [ref]) > * S2.2, concatenating the flow Ids raises too many issues > on format, order, what a flow ID is etc. Delete > * The phrasing needs to be better in several places, eg > the abstract, the latter part of para 1 & para 2 of Intro. > * Also S2.3.3 "The signaling protocol MUST be able to > carry identification (address information) of the PCN edge > nodes." -> "The signaling protocol MUST carry the identity of > the PCN-egress-node that sends the message." The rest of the > section can be deleted. Similar comment about 2.3.4. S2.3.5 > can be shortened to "The load generated by the signaling > protocol SHOULD be minimized.". > * S3 is hard to understand. It can be much shorter; > similar to S2 it should be confined to signalling; something > like "Request - response signalling is used" would clarify it. > * S2.1 title - delete "PCN". Delete last sentence > [nothing to do with the sub-section] > * S2.2, title, delete "Signalled" > * S2.4 something here needs to be capitalised. > > Question: S1, para 2, here and elsewhere you say the > signalling is "towards" the decision point. Why don't you say > "to" the decision point? Is this because you're thinking the > msg could piggy-back on some existing signalling (like rsvp)? > If yes, i think it would be better to spell this out specifically: > < * PCN egress feedback, from a PCN-egress-node to the > decision point > * A request, from the decision point to a > PCN-ingress-node, that triggers the PCN-ingress-node to > measure the PCN-sent-rate > * PCN ingress feedback, from a PCN-ingress-node to the > decision point. > A signalling message may either be sent directly, or may > piggy-back on some other message that is being sent via the > relevant node.>> > > Security > I don't see why msg authentication & integrity, anti-DOS > measures are a SHOULD. The base assumption of PCN > architecture is that PCN operates within a trusted domain, ie > all nodes in the domain are trusted. So it's ok providing the > msg comes from an interface internal to the PCN-domain. > I don't understand the msg confidentiality bullet. When would > PCN signalling msgs be visible to non-autorsied nodes; and if > there is such a case, where is msg confidentiality only a > MAY? The reqt surely is that msgs don't leak out of the > PCN-domain - which should be easy since msgs are sent to the > PCN-boundary-node's address > > Replace S2.3.7 with something like the following:- The PCN > architecture [ref] assumes that all PCN-nodes are PCN-enabled > and trusted to operate correctly. In the context of this document: > * PCN-signalling messages MUST NOT leak out of the PCN-domain (+) > * PCN-boundary-nodes MUST validate the signalling messages, > to avoid that they come from an attacker (*) > (+) should be easy, since msgs are sent to the > PCN-boundary-node's address > (*) one way is simply: does the msg arrive on an interface > internal to the PCN-domain? If yes, it isn't from an > attacker, since all PCN-nodes are trusted > > Terminology > * consistently use terminology from 5559: PCN-traffic, > PCN-ingress-node, PCN-egress-node ETC etc > * use terminology from the edge behaviour docs - > PCN-sent-rate, NM-rate, ETM-rate, THM-rate, CLE could all be > re-used (and CLE is badly defined here) > * decision point, delete "of course" > * PCN egress feedback - definition could be better. I > think the "feedback" is the report (not the "content") "A > report sent by the PCN-egress-node to the decision point; it > reports measurements made by the PCN-egress-node that inform > decisions about flow admission and flow termination" > * PCN ingress feedback - similar. Also, does the report > ever include anything other than PCN-sent-rate? > * "A report sent by the PCN-ingress-node to the decision > point; it reports measurements(*) made by the > PCN-ingress-node that inform decisions about flow > termination" (*) or "the measurement of PCN-sent-rate" > * I'd delete "Ingress rate request". It's easy to refer > to this as a request for PCN ingress feedback > > Best wishes > phil > -----Original Message----- > From: pcn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Steven Blake > Sent: 21 October 2010 15:29 > To: Georgios Karagiannis > Cc: pcn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PCN] WGLC for > draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01.txt? > > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 06:59 +0000, Georgios Karagiannis wrote: > > > Hi Steve, Hi Scott, Hi all > > > > Based on the comments received up to now and based on the last > > versions > > of: > > draft-ietf-pcn-cl-edge-behaviour-07 and > > draft-ietf-pcn-sm-edge-behaviour-04 we updated the signaling > > requirements draft. > > > > In my opinion we can start the WG Last Call for this draft! > > Ok, thanks Georgios. > > The WGLC for draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-01 starts > today, concluding Thursday, Nov. 4. Please send comments to > the pcn list. > > > Regards, > > // Steve > > _______________________________________________ > PCN mailing list > PCN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn >