Subject: Re: [PCN] PCN meeting in Paris?

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:43:01 -0400

On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 01:18 -0500, Steven Blake wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Is there any interest in a PCN WG meeting in Paris?  If so, please
> indicate if you will attend and suggest agenda items.  
> 
> All of the chartered drafts are (finally!) at the IESG or moved to
> another working group, so IMO there is not much to discuss except
> potential future work.  Before the IESG would agree to recharter the PCN
> working group, I'm sure that they would want to know whether there are
> any PCN implementations under way or deployed, and the extent of
> operator interest in deploying PCN.  So I suggest that the working group
> discuss these questions on the list before proposing another WG session.

I received a few suggestions the first time I posted this.  I believe
that all of the necessary drafts have been revised to resolve IESG
comments, so we can suppose that they will move forward, but we should
set aside some discussion time in case there are still unresolved
comments.  The WG needs to decide how to proceed with
draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-02.txt and
draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-02.txt, but that needs to happen prior
to the meeting.

Please send additional suggestions for the meeting agenda ASAP.  I will
publish a draft agenda on Wednesday.

Regards,

// Steve

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:07:35 +0000

Steven,

Can I have 10mins on pcn-3-in-1-encoding ?

The -09 rev of pcn-3-in-1-encoding included a significant amount of 
stuff about handling e2e ECN (both for PCN and non-PCN packets), in 
response to the IESG's (Adrian Farrel's) very valid point that we had 
only described the spec wrt operator config, not implementation. 
We've also defined defaults at his request.

I'd like to present the new rules just to check the WG is happy with 
the outcome. I think the IESG process is continuing whether or not 
the WG is happy, but if someone points out a flaw I'm sure we can 
make further changes.

I've gone thru all the combinations of requirements I can think of, 
and I'm v happy now that we have a nice workable solution for ECN + 
PCN. But I know ECN has been a controversial area in the past, so 
it's worth getting the perspective of others.

Bob

At 04:43 13/03/2012, Steven Blake wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>PCN mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design