Marcus Brunner wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Yves, you stated in Pittsbourgh, that you want to go for a BOF. You
> already asked for it?
Hi Marcus
not yet no, there is a bit of a delay in our schedule...
glad you ask, so i can immediately put it in this mail.
> If no we should start discussing, what the purpose/goal of the WG is.
the purpose/goal of the WG would be to define a protocol independent
representation of Service Level Specifications, and the
requirements/procedure for the negotiation of these.
note that this goes beyond the content of our draft, where we merely
indicate a number of parameters that need (at least) to be available in
an SLS. we also didn't make any differentiation in the draft between the
notion of subscription to SLSses, and the subsequent invocation of
these.
We are presently in progress of writing a framework document that will
provide the scope of the work, and the various approaches that are
available from different projects/efforts, including the notion of
subscription/invocation. That's part of the reason that this list has
been pretty silent so far.
anyhow, here are the plans :
next week, a new version of the sls draft , a framework document and
indicative charter will be issued. based on this, we will see how much
interest there is to go for a BoF/WG. Since we are a bit late, i will
however already contact Bert to ask for a slot in San Diego. So far,
from private mails prior to the activation of this list, i have seen
quite some interest in specification of this. Also see (
http://www.totaltele.com/view.asp?ArticleID=31724&Pub=tt
)
> With SLS document, which is I think very premature, it is not clear for
> me what the target standard should be in the area of SLS and its
> negotiation.
a basic set of transport properties at least, that allows automation of
the negotiation procedure, and universal interpretation independent of
the point of attachment to the network (roaming).
>
> Some comments to Werner's
>
> > 1.2, page 4, paragraph 4, "(template)"
> > Is this really a template ? Or is rather a collection of
>
> Would it be a good idea to model the SLS using CIM (as in the Policy
> Framework, where the draft actually was very well placed by Bert W.)
we haven't used any specification language so far, CIM is a pretty good
candidate indeed. Internally we originally used a BNF notation scheme
(which is a bit less heavy), but i would support going for CIM.
as for the placing of the draft in the policy framework group : as i
tried to explain during the presentation in Pittsburgh, I do agree that
there is affinity with the work of the policy framework group, but you
don't need the policy framework architecture for supporting the SLS
negotiation. In that sense, it is different enough to allow the creation
of a different working group.
>
> >3.1, general.
> > Typical SLAs in use today include geographic references like "no more
> > than X ms RTT to any of our routers in Europe". Example:
> > http://www.uk.uu.net/customerservices/sla/tandcs/
> >
> > Such specifications are probably too difficult to express in a general
> > formal way, so the current approach of ignoring them seems appropriate.
> > Nevertheless, it may be good to mention them, simply due to their
> > current practical relevance.
>
> I don't think that they are too difficult, but on an other level of
> abstraction. (part of domain name? Some specific countries, regions etc.
>
me neither.
> >3.2, list, DSCP.
> > Why is it only a single DSCP ? Also, is there only a single Flow ID
> > per SLS, or can there be many ?
>
> A set of DSCPs is definitly needed.
>
you can have multiple flow IDs attached to one SLS, but then one would
police on the aggregate of the packets that are classified as such.
this is different from identifying multiple SLSses for which policing is
done on any individual flow ids.
why do you definitively need a set of DSCPs ? do you mean so as to
identify PHBGs ?
> >3.2, list, page 6, Source information.
> > This highlights some problems with the formality chosen: usually,
> > "X" and "set of X" are distinguished. But here (and also for the
> > destination), "set of source prefixed" only appears as a set.
>
> I have problems with the exclusive OR for src & dest addresses.
>
how do you mean?
> >5. (and also bits of 1.2, etc.)
> > The discussion on signaling appears premature and probably beyond
> > the scope of a document specifying SLS parameters and semantics.
>
> I think there should be a requirements draft for the negotiation anyway.
I don't know if one can really separate them, since a request for an SLS
subscription/invocation may carry a different set of parameters then the
ack/offer being presented by the network. we will try to clarify this in
our next version.
>
> Marcus
thanks,
Yves
> Koch Berthold wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > on behalf of Werner Almesberger (EPFL) I'm sending his comments on the
> > TEQUILA draft.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Bert
> > <<C.C.txt>>
> >
> > -
> > _____________________________________________________
> > Bert F. Koch Siemens AG, ICN WN CS EK P
> > Hofmannstr. 51 Voice: +49 89 722 22 465
> > D-81359 Muenchen Fax: +49 89 722 41 920
> > Germany Mail: Berthold.Koch@icn.siemens.de
> > Internet: http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/aquila/
> > _____________________________________________________
> > More news on INTERWORKING'2000 at http://www.telenor.no/fou/iw2000/
> > _____________________________________________________
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Name: C.C.txt
> > C.C.txt Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> > Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> --
>
> Dr. Marcus Brunner
> C&C Research Laboratories
> NEC Europe Ltd.
>
> E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de
> WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner
>
> Adenauerplatz 6
> D-69115 Heidelberg
> Germany
>
> Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129
> Fax: +49 (0)6221/ 9051155
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Yves T'Joens | | Project Manager Internet Access and Edge | | Network Strategy Group | | Francis Wellesplein, 1 phone : +32 (0)3 240 7890 | | 2018 Antwerp fax : +32 (0)3 240 9932 | | Belgium email: yves.tjoens@alcatel.be | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:18:57 CEST