Re: proposed charter

In message <[email protected]>
"James M. Polk" writes:
>  
> At 06:02 PM 9/26/2006 -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>  
> >In message <[email protected]>
> >Fred Baker writes:
> > >
> > > or whether drop priority even makes sense operationally, which it
> > > doesn't.
> > >
> > > On Sep 26, 2006, at 4:22 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > >
> > > > For example, it is important
> > > > to know how many priority/preemption values there will be and whether
> > > > each priority requires three drop preferences as required by an AF
> > > > service.
> >
> >
> >Fred,
> >
> >For PSTN voice it doesn't but for elastic real time or elastic bulk
> >transfer it might.  What you are saying is that AF doesn't make sense.
>  
> For voice?


ETS == voice  ?  That was the question.

We already know that in general: voice != AF

Just confirming that Fred considers ETS to be voice only - at least
for now.  btw - I think that is a valid assumption - at least for now.


> >Maybe it doesn't but if so the diffserv WG wasted a lot of time.
>  
> Have you looked at who wrote 2597?


If (ETS == voice) then restricting ETS to EF is not an issue.  See
next sentence quoted below.

If ETS can also be elastic traffic of the type that was intended for
AF but we have declared AF to be not useful for ETS, then it implies
that AF is not useful.  That's all I was try to imply, nothing more.

Personally I think AF is useful that is why I wanted confirmation that
Fred is assuming that ETS is voice only.

> >Either that or maybe ETS will never be anything but voice traffic.


We should be clear about assumptions.  You and Fred seem to be
assuming that ETS == voice, but also seem to be reluctant to say that.

Here are some of my assumptions.  We need to walk first, then run.
The IETF should not assign DSCP codepoints for everyones pet idea.
For now ETS is assumed to be voice.  EF is fine for voice.  A new
codepoint allows traffic to be universally identified as being ETS
related.  That might be good or bad.  ETS may later carry more than
just voice.  If needed the decision to use one codepoint can be
revisited.  There has never been anything stopping a deployment in
which an experimental set of DSCP code points are used, EF-like,
AF-like, or something else.  There is nothing to prevent a ETS
deployment from using the existing AF codepoints.  If the use of
experimental codepoints proves useful, additional ETS codepoints can
be added later.

Curtis