Re: Modeling of Policing component.

Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 wrote:
> 
> > Very funny.
> 
> I liked to think it was :-)
> 
> > What I said was I thought very clear:
> 
> it wasn't

will try harder

> 
> > this isn't sonething we should do in the IETF.
> > Did I say it shouldn't be done? Or that when it
> > is done, that the IETF shouldn't use the result?
> 
> I think in fact that is how most people would have
> interpreted your statement
> 
> > But it should be done rigorously, and that means
> > in an academic context.
> 
> So are you suggesting that the work we did in fixing
> the EF PHB was
> a) not rigorous

It was, I believe, quite rigorous (as was the work done on
the alternative fix) but it wasn't anything like as hard
as what I believe needs to be done to analyze edge2edge
behaviors in the general case. I believe that is at least
an order of magnitude harder.

> b) my co-authors and I are ... "academics"... (eeepp :-) or

This would not be an insult. Feel free to call me an academic
any time :-)

> c) that the work was not "done in the IETF"

It was indeed an IETF activity - but imho it was a finite, well
defined problem compared to the e2e problem.

> 
> the first two I beleive to be untrue and certainly a little insulting....
> me, an "academic"? never! :-)
> and the last is clearly untrue
> 
> so could you explain the contradication......
> or is there no contradication because you don't think
> we should have done the EF work at the IETF either??

I think we had no choice. But as I hope I've explained above, the
size of the e2e problem is different. If I was an AD, I wouldn't
charter a WG until there was published math to work from.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html