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

Dan Grossman wrote:
> 
> 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.

That is really work for a trade association, not for the IETF, imho.

> 
> There may be some cause for hope that the NSIS work will ultimately provide much of the
> needed mechanism to allow capacity reservation.  

You're begging the question of whether that is an appropriate mechanism for the Internet.

> It may even fill in some of the nagging
> holes in the Diffserv architecture (for example, the ability to nail a path,

Again, begging the question.

> mechanisms to
> manage DSCP mappings between DS domains, 

Again, trade association work.

> and ability to discover what services... er...
> PDBs...  might be available between two or more hosts).

Unclear that this is soluble even in principle.

Hence, it's my view that there is no work item that is both mature
enough and suitable for IETF action.

   Brian

> 
> 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