<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.charny-pcn-comparison" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00">
   <front>
      <title>Comparison of Proposed PCN Approaches</title>
      <author initials="A." surname="Charny" fullname="Anna Charny">
         <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="November" day="9" year="2007" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   Several, sometimes conflicting proposals have been offered for the
   consideration of the PCN WG regarding PCN internal node and PCN edge
   node behaviors.  Based on the WG charter, the WG needs to make a
   decision on which of the proposed PCN-interior-node and PCN-boundary-
   nodes behaviors to endorse.  The primary goal of this draft is
   twofold.  First, we attempt to summarize the functional differences
   between the proposed alternatives.  Second, we provide a brief
   summary of performance evaluation results.  Finally we propose a view
   on how a (parameterized) specification of the PCN-interior-node
   metering and marking function can be described to enable several of
   the proposed behaviors.  We argue that if this parameterized
   specification is used for specifying the PCN-interior-node behavior,
   then it can support a range of behaviors at the PCN-boundary-node.
   The decision on which of the PCN-boundary-node behaviors to choose
   can then be considered separately.  We also discuss complexities
   associated with choosing such uniform approach.
	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-charny-pcn-comparison-00" />
   
</reference>
