> What is interesting is that we found the need to have pre-defined
> SLSs (we called it "Network Services" but the name can be misleading):
> for ease of negotiation and implementation only a subset
> of parameters can be specified, while the others are given by default
> with reference to a small set of "well known services".
> This is in perfect agreement with your idea that a well-known service
> identifer is just a compression of the SLS for ease of negotiation.
Well-known services do negotiation easier, but I don't think they would
be just a compression of the SLS. I do not think an SLS will be always
sufficient.
A quantitative well-known services would be a mix of:
- explanation in a human language (eg, English)
- mathematics
- definition of parameters and possibly limit values for them
My point is that one domain may not be able to figure out
services that other domains are willing to negociate just by observing
parameters in the SLS. I cannot give many examples, but the Virtual
Wire (VW) PDB is a good one! How could one domain know that one SLS
refers to VW and not to other different service (maybe not so
strict) using EF PHB ?
Other examples are Intserv "Guaranteed Service" and "Controlled Load"
Regards
Carlos
>
> We plan to send a contribution to this discussion with a draft
> document in a short time (one or two weeks) to present our approach.
>
> Best regards,
> Stefano
>
> --
> *******************************************************************
> Stefano Salsano
> CoRiTeL - Consorzio di Ricerca sulle Telecomunicazioni
>
> E-mail : salsano@coritel.it URL : http://www.coritel.it
> Tel. : +39 06 20410029 Address : Via di Tor Vergata, 135
> Fax. : +39 06 20410037 00133 Roma - ITALY
> *******************************************************************
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 04:10:52 CEST