Re: Admission field in QSPEC -- was RE: Review ofdraft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt

Hi all,

I'm jumping late to this discussion -- the IETF deadline and the aftermath kept me busy. Sorry for that. 

First of all, John and me believed to have rough consensus for the proposed change to the QSPEC draft. The proposed changed has been first discussed offline in end of Nov 2007 between the document authors of the involved drafts. On Dec 3, Francois sent an email to the dime, tsvwg and nsis list announcing the proposed changed. Nobody objected here. 

However, I have checked again and noted that Jerry was actually not listed as one of the email recipients in the offline conversation. Sorry for that, I personally have not noticed that earlier.

Given the state right now, I would not call it consensus. The discussions latetly on the nsis list have not reached consensus and further discussions are needed. I propose to discuss the issue further on the NSIS list and to definitely discuss this during the NSIS session (if possible for Ken and Francois to participate, otherwise off-session on the hallway). 

  Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of ken carlberg
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: Gerald Ash
> Cc: John Loughney; nsis
> Subject: Re: [NSIS] Admission field in QSPEC -- was RE: 
> Review ofdraft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt
> 
> 
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Gerald Ash wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Obviously one option is for emergency-rsvp to adopt the 
> approach being taken all along in QSPEC.  We are not being 
> told why this is not considered. 
> 
> 
> oh come on.  how many times must be said and in how many 
> ways?  on February 25, 2008 2:50:24 PM EST I stated the following
> 
> "and as far as the current values set by Y.1541, I wish there 
> was support for Scavenger Service, which is considered less 
> than Best Effort (already defined as "0" in Y.1541).  Since 
> I'm not a member of the ITU, I can't advocate this position 
> nor accomplish it if the Admission field of all three drafts 
> <emergency-rsvp>, <dime-qos-parameters> and <nsis-qspec> are 
> subject to values defined by the ITU."
> 
> 
> Put another way, Francois and I have said that we don't want 
> an Admission Priority field to be constrained (limited, 
> burdened,....pick the word of your choice) with pre-existing 
> values, and in particular those that come from a different 
> standards body.  And we are not condemning all other similar 
> practices.  We are not even saying that those of Y.2171 
> cannot be used.
> 
> as for as the agreement that was passed around in nov/dec, 
> you are not a newbie to think that agreements are etched in 
> stone.  they exist to be commented on, hence our letting 
> others on the diameter/tsvwg/nsis list know the results of 
> private discussions.
> 
> 
> 	
> 	IMO we should retain the standardized admission 
> priority levels as included in QSPEC for a long time.  If 
> emergency-rsvp cannot adopt the same approach, then for now 
> retain 2 approaches.
> 
> 
> and I brought this up a while back as well.  we have no 
> intention of steam rolling the agreement.  if part of the 
> agreement breaks, it breaks and we'll go our separate ways.  
> 
> and I apologize if this note is sounding a bit rude, but part 
> of this is getting a bit much.
> 
> -ken
> 
> 

[email protected]   <== NEW ADDRESS

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014