Hi Raju
Thank you for your clarifications:
> In the real world, a customer cannot (and usually will not) demand that the
> provider use a particular technology to fulfill the contract. Nor should
> this be a requirement mandated by the draft. A focus on diffServ, without
> making this focus restrict wider applicability, may be a reasonable
> compromise?
Yes, I agree. But, maybe this focus on diffserv could be restricted to some
sections fo the drafts.
Carlos
>
> raju
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carlos Alberto Kamienski <cak@cin.ufpe.br>
> To: <sls@ist-tequila.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [tequila/sls] sls wg - proposed charter
>
> Hi Raju
>
> I see that what could bind SLSs to diffserv is the use of the DSCP. But,
> this
> DSCP is not necessarily related to the interior DSCP which is used to
> select
> the PHB, at least this what draft-tequila-sls-00.txt states.
> So, IMO it doesn´t matter whether a domain uses diffserv or not, as long as
> it
> is able to met its negotiated SLSs. This is what I call a "general
> solution".
> If this is true, then I think sls drafts shouldn´t reference diffserv (or
> other
> technology), except for examples or appendices. But they refer to diffserv
> as
> it would the target technology for SLS defintion and negotiation.
> For example, draft-tequila-sls-00.txt:
> " The basic assumption of this draft is that IP services will be
> deployed over a public IP infrastructure, which will be (partly if
> not completely) composed of diffserv-aware network elements ([RFC-
> 2475], [DS-MODEL]). These network elements are able to implement Per
> Hop Behaviors (PHBs), including the Assured Forwarding PHB ([RFC-
> 2597]), and the Expedited Forwarding PHB ([RFC-2598]."
>
> This doesn´t mean I have something against diffserv. I think that any
> reference
> to specific technology should be removed from the drafts where their are not
> necessary to preserve generallity.
>
> Regards
>
> Carlos Kamienski
>
> Raju Rajan wrote:
>
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > Could you expand a little bit what you see are the differences between
> > "general
> > solutions for SLS definition and negotiation or specific ones for
> diffserv"?
> > From my understanding I can see two (relatively minor) differences:
> >
> > 1) The DSCP has to be communicated in the former instance. Typically, this
> > would be one field in the service definition.
> > 2) We may (as examples, or appendices) have to address specific services
> > like EF and AS.
> >
> > What further differences in emphasis/content do you see?
> >
> > raju rajan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Carlos Alberto Kamienski <cak@cin.ufpe.br>
> > To: sls-list <sls@ist-tequila.org>
> > Cc: Raju Rajan <rajan@research.att.com>; Yves T'Joens
> > <yves.tjoens@alcatel.be>
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 4:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tequila/sls] sls wg - proposed charter
> >
> > Dear Yves and Raju
> >
> > What is not clear to me is if slsu wg is going to present general
> > solutions for SLS definition and negotiation or specific ones for
> > diffserv.
> > Previous discussions in this list let the impression people were looking
> > for solutions for diffserv. Presented drafts also directed their focus to
> > diffserv. Now, it seems the proposed charter is changing radically this
> > vision:
> >
> > "As the architecture and negotiation framework for Service Level
> > negotiation is not particularly bound to IP networks, it is to be
> > understood that the procedures as discussed within the proposed WG are to
> > be extensible to optical networks (o-sls)."
> >
> > So, if the outcomes of the group are not to be bound to any specific
> > technology and diffserv is just instantiation, then I think this should
> > be clear in the drafts. Otherwise, if it is to be bound to diffserv, then
> > the charter should be changed.
> >
> > Carlos Kamienski
> >
> > > Dear sls-subscripts,
> > >
> > > please find attached a proposed charter for the sls work (with a little
> > > delay, for which my apologies).
> > > The objective of sending it around is to gather feedback on the listed
> > > objectives and end-results, and as such all comments are warmly
> > > welcomed. We have covered in the charter what we felt had support during
> > > the last ietf meeting.
> > >
> > > Based upon the suggestions of this list, i will try to arrange a chat
> > > with the ops area directors on the subject during the minneapolis
> > > meeting.
> > >
> > > A new version of the framework draft, covering the technical remarks
> > > during the san diego bof, will be made available before the minneapolis
> > > meeting.
> > >
> > > further information can be found at
> > > http://www.ist-tequila.org/sls.html
> > >
> > > yves & raju
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 09:36:05 CET