Re: [72attendees] [tsv-area] FSA signalling issues

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 16 September 2008 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <72attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 72attendees-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-72attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BDF28C1A2; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD1C3A6984; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.175
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NHDTlhAydaU4; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8AD3A63CB; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m8GEd1bM001957; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:39:04 +0300
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:37 +0300
Received: from net-85.nrpn.net ([10.241.184.208]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:36 +0300
Message-Id: <73F92A8E-F21F-4531-AE55-9AF0B2A9BEB9@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: ext JOHN ADAMS <j.l.adams1@btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <772264.35065.qm@web86512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:38:30 +0300
References: <772264.35065.qm@web86512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2008 14:38:37.0090 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7499020:01C91809]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>, 72attendees@ietf.org, TSV Area <tsv-area@ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [72attendees] [tsv-area] FSA signalling issues
X-BeenThere: 72attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <72attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/72attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:72attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, John,

thanks for promptly following up on some of the questions that arose  
following your presentation at TSVAREA in Dublin. I encourage the  
relevant working groups to continue this discussion with you in order  
to more fully evaluate how flow-state aware forwarding intersects with  
the broader Internet architecture.

Thanks,
Lars

On 2008-8-27, at 0:23, ext JOHN ADAMS wrote:
> I gave a talk at Dublin in the Transport Area Open meeting. The  
> subject was developments
> at the ITU-T on Flow State Aware (FSA) standardisation.
>
> A question raised at the IETF was (roughly) "why isn't a new  
> extension of RSVP being proposed
> to accommodate the requirements of FSA signalling?"
>
> I attach an intial response to that question in the form of an  
> issues list that will also be proposed as
> a new Appendix of the draft ITU Recommendation Q.flowstatesig. The  
> conclusions of this first
> analysis are that:
> - it is an aim that we try our hardest to fit within the preferred  
> architectural framework of RSVP
> - however there are a number of challenging issues and, since that  
> is the case, the preferred approach
>    is to keep other options open.
>
> Please get back to me with issues that will help the continued  
> progress of FSA at the next IETF
>
> Regards,
>
> John<RSVP and FSA compared.doc>

_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
72attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees