Re: Hard questions (was: Diffserv PIB approved as Informational RFC)

We _already_ have service definitions ( RFC 2211 and RFC 2212).  A small number of
additional ones  would be useful, but I agree that a signalling WG is not the place to be
defining them.

My point was that the Diffserv work is complete enough to confuse the innocent,  but not
complete enough to be useful.     We have not defined any end-to-end (or even edge-to-edge)
services... er.... behaviors, much less the complete set of mechanisms to offer them or
even a sound architectural framework.  I don't think that NSIS can or should be expected to
resolve all that.

There may be some cause for hope that the NSIS work will ultimately provide much of the
needed mechanism to allow capacity reservation.  It may even fill in some of the nagging
holes in the Diffserv architecture (for example, the ability to nail a path,  mechanisms to
manage DSCP mappings between DS domains, and ability to discover what services... er...
PDBs...  might be available between two or more hosts).

Dan

Marcus Brunner wrote:

> [...]
> >> > You correctly note that there are difficult problems that remain in
> >> > diffserv, but it's not clear that they can be solved in an IETF WG.
> >> > So, I would say that we are taking a breather before finishing the
> >> > job and further that the breather is required so we can get some
> >> > experience.
> >>
> >> I think that addresses my question.  The question back to you is "until
> >> when"?
> >>
> >
> > I think you need to address that question to our AD. I'm not
> > sure what event would be considered the appropriate one
> > to start a new WG, though I heard in NSIS that they wanted
> > to take another stab at defining "quality of service classes"
> > so maybe the charter is going to be changed.
>
> Being active in NSIS, we basically ruled service definitions and
> specifications out of scope. I think the service definition is partly too
> difficult and on the other hand a service providers differentiater to offer
> the service markets want.
>
> I feel it is not the task of the IETF to define it, even so I think a small
> number of basic PDB would help first deployments.
>
> Marcus
>
> >
> >       Kathie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> --------------------------------------
> Dr. Marcus Brunner
> Network Laboratories
> NEC Europe Ltd.
>
> E-Mail: [email protected]
> WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


_______________________________________________
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