Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext

"Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <> Fri, 10 August 2012 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0087D21F84F7 for <>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.561
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S-rJJOGNvnch for <>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C77521F84C8 for <>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2445; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344600448; x=1345810048; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tQJQDV3olVMOaQUEsBygDWuFH9Zn39Yk6sgi+cpsks0=; b=J34qYryoW76ZtiYn4ITj/TYmO2UQOsDo3XMiUjKZycMmpBoB/e7IKPCt x+wdYLmDhEDVX94PehRlgSRCZR9l0njUUmHR+Pi4xX94yY4Gy++M4Kmrs DQ/8ff7xRnMD/GOSUhTBCNlRZ/ylzY6YzM1RcD01I+S+x/cHzOhSF34QE Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,745,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="110293999"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2012 12:07:28 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7AC7RcZ032572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:07:27 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:27 -0500
From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <>
To: Lou Berger <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext
Thread-Index: Ac11NY6nevEXepS5RqKUu/wkiJbhHgAZiUcAAANRhIAALYGUAAAu33WA
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:07:26 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <021a01cd7536$2104aa10$630dfe30$> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--36.416500-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: CCAMP <>, "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:07:29 -0000


On 9 Aug 2012, at 15:44, Lou Berger wrote:

> How about "MUST be" --> "is"

I think the situation is that:
	* we want to define a Resource Sharing Association whose semantics is clearly that resources ought to be shared
	* at the same time, all things related to admission control, bandwidth accounting etc are out of scope, so the exact meaning of "sharing resources" is somewhat implementation specific.
Do you agree?

My personal preference is that :
	* we have a strong statement about semantics (i.e. "MUST" or a "SHOULD")
	* we clarify that the realization of this is somewhat implementation specific (to that end, I like Adrian's suggestion below to add an explicit statement clarifying that it may mean different things to different implementations)
This is as opposed to an alternative approach which has a weak statement ("is") on semantics of the Association.

So I'd suggest something like:
Once an association is identified, resources MUST be considered as shared across the identified sessions by the admission control function. Since the admission control function is outside the scope of RSVP, we observe that how resource sharing is actually reflected may vary according to specific implementations (e.g. depending on the specific admission control and resource management algorithm, or on how local policy is taken into account).

A SHOULD instead of a MUST can work for me to.

Would that be acceptable?


> Lou
> On 8/8/2012 12:02 PM, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:
>> 2205 uses the term "Admission control", so would it work if we said:
>> "
>> Once an association is identified, resources MUST be considered as
>> shared across
>>  the identified sessions by the admission control function.
>> "

Adrian Farrell wrote:
>> actual resource allocation is really an implementation choice and
>> different internal implementation choices.  We didn't want to overly
>> constrain an implementation. "is expected" is really what we mean, but
>> how do you say this in 2119 language?
> I think you are fine using SHOULD in this case. But you need to add
> ...although implementations MAY vary this according to local policy and
> resource-sharing capabilities.
> (Note that Francois proposed to promote this to a MUST, which would be OK, but
> doesn't seem to be the original intent.)