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

James,
   
  Responses below.
   
  > Gerry
> 
> So, let me get this straight (from you), you are backing only an 
> Admission priority indicator (a field) that travels only end2end or 
> not at all (because that's the way "all SPs and vendors have agreed
> to")?
   
  Hardly.  I don't think summaries like that help get to some conclusion/consensus here.  You need to go back and read the thread a little more carefully.  
   
  What I am 'backing' most recently is stated in my last post http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg08279.html (in response to Martin's request to also accommodate the rsvp approach in nsis) proposed a way to accommodate both the rsvp approach and nsis approach by using an L bit to indicate:
   
     L = 0 - admission priority field has end-to-end significance
         (above admission priority values in IANA registry apply)
     L = 1 - admission priority field has local significance only
         (admission priority values set by local domain administrator)
   
  If both nsis and rsvp incorporate the L bit, then both approaches could be accommodated.
  
> 
> If true, you only see one of the following scenarios working
> 
> Scenario 1 - RSVP e2e
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>        |   RSVP   |<->|   RSVP   |<->|  RSVP   |<->|  RSVP   |
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>          Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
> 
> Scenario 2 - RSVP start/end, NSIS somewhere in the middle
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>        |   RSVP   |<->|   NSIS   |<->|  RSVP   |<->|  RSVP   |
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>          Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
> 
> Scenario 3 - RSVP start/end, NSIS as the middle
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>        |   RSVP   |<->|   NSIS   |<->|  NSIS   |<->|  RSVP   |
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>          Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
> 
> Scenario 4 - NSIS start/end, RSVP as the middle
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>        |   NSIS   |<->|   RSVP   |<->|  RSVP   |<->|  NSIS   |
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>            Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
> 
> Scenario 5 - NSIS start/end, RSVP somewhere in the middle
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>        |   NSIS   |<->|   NSIS   |<->|  RSVP   |<->|  NSIS   |
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>          Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
> 
> Scenario 6 - NSIS e2e
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>        |   NSIS   |<->|   NSIS   |<->|  NSIS   |<->|  NSIS   |
>        +----------+   +----------+   +---------+   +---------+
>            Domain1        Domain2       Domain3        Domain4
> 
> The only one you see working is scenario 6 because it is NSIS e2e.  I 
> know this is the NSIS WG list, but do you believe it is realistic or 
> idealistic to advocate (what seems like) a 
> my-way-or-I-oppose-all-other-ways direction?
   
  Hardly.  Again, your phrasing leaves a lot to be desired here.
  
> 
> Shouldn't there be a means for interoperability without 100% 
> comformance to 1 way of doing a thing?
> 
> Just looking for clarification with diagrams, so I can visualize what 
> you're really saying.
   
  All the above scenarios 1 --> 6 would work if both rsvp and nsis incorporated the L bit, as proposed.  Once again, that proposal is to accommodate *both* approaches, as suggested by Martin.  If people have alternative proposals, please go ahead and make them.
   
  Jerry
   
> 
> James
>

       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis