RE: What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-m odel-08.txt

So are you offering your services to help write the required
specs and/or review and/or implement and/or deploy?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven.Wright [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 20:22
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Joel Halpern (E-mail);
> Ed Ellesson (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with:
> draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt
> 
> 
> Of those service providers interested in IP QoS,
> I believe there is interest and potential applications for 
> different qos
> policy mechanisms -
> -the query of a directory for qos policy information  (e.g LDAP etc.)
> -the push of new qos configuration information to the network 
> element ( e.g.
> COPS-PR,  SNMPCONF etc.).
> A multiservice network may need to support both mechanisms at 
> the same time.
> I believe the QPIM was intended to bring alignment of these 
> other concrete
> schemas.
> 
> I'd like to have a document to reference for some equipment 
> specifications
> that I am developing.
> so I would like to see the QPIM progressed. Certainly, the 
> anomalies that
> you pointed out need to be addressed to make it a useful 
> specification.
> 
> If this is a standards track document, then I understand your 
> question to
> relate to the standard process for standards track documents 
> where there is
> a requirement for interoperable implementations to be 
> demonstrated.  So if
> the standard concerns an abstract information model, what is the
> implementation anyway -  a concrete schema or running code in 
> a router? For
> this reason I could well see this being classified as an 
> Informational RFC.
> 
> Now look forward a little in time, let's be optimistic and 
> assume the LDAP
> schema is implemented. Can the LDAP schema use the QPIM RFC 
> as a normative
> specification if it is classified as Informational RFC? or 
> must it be (re)
> classified as Standards track ?
> 
> I don't see a rational for calling it experimental, but I'm 
> willing to be
> educated.
> 
> Regarding QPIM/QDDIM/LDAP Schema relationships, is there a need for an
> Applicability statement - would that be the appropriate way 
> to handle it?
> 
> Steven Wright
> Science & Technology
> BellSouth
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:04 PM
> > To: Joel Halpern (E-mail); Ed Ellesson (E-mail)
> > Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); [email protected]
> > Subject: [Policy] What to do with:
> > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt
> >
> >
> > I have posted my AD review to the policy WG mailing list today.
> >
> > Last week Friday I posted my review of QPIM.
> >
> > I wonder... for both documents, but specifically for this one:
> >
> >    Do we really want this (still) to be standards track.
> >
> > My reasoning:
> >
> > - We (or at least I) have seen interest in this space dimish
> >   (if not dissappear completely)
> >
> > - The document has a lot of places where it talks about more
> >   work that could be done, should be done, and how together
> >   with that work, this would be something good. Specifically
> >   a mapping to LDAP Schema . But as far as I know, we see not
> >   interest in that. Do we?
> >   And then, if no such docs will ever show up, what use do these
> >   docs then have?
> >
> > - I believe I saw some ( a little) interest expressed to do an
> >   LDAP Schema mapping. But not for QPIM and QDDIM, do I ?
> >
> > So maybe Informational or Experiemntal is better?
> >
> > Just thinking aloud here.
> > Pls send me your comments.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> > _______________________________________________
> > Policy mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy
> >
>