AW: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter]
"Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com> Mon, 13 March 2006 11:06 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIksH-0007oy-Di; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:06:05 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIksG-0007ot-C5 for dcpel@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:06:04 -0500
Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FIksE-0002B5-VV for dcpel@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:06:04 -0500
Received: from mail1.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lizzard.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2DB61P8030271; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:06:01 +0100
Received: from fthw9xpa.ww002.siemens.net (fthw9xpa.ww002.siemens.net [157.163.133.222]) by mail1.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2DB61AY007555; Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:06:01 +0100
Received: from MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.145]) by fthw9xpa.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:06:00 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: AW: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter]
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:01:23 +0100
Message-ID: <ECDC9C7BC7809340842C0E7FCF48C393A807FD@MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter]
thread-index: AcZDp87b+JyV3icOQXe4DjZg8NWA2wC39rUg
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>
To: Olivier Dugeon <Olivier.Dugeon@rd.francetelecom.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Mar 2006 11:06:00.0598 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C9CDB60:01C6468E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 285c5d2442d4c903d8dda55de04f5334
Cc: dcpel@ietf.org, Michel Diaz <Michel.Diaz@laas.fr>
X-BeenThere: dcpel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for possible diffserv control plane elements WG <dcpel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel>, <mailto:dcpel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dcpel>
List-Post: <mailto:dcpel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcpel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel>, <mailto:dcpel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1357435533=="
Errors-To: dcpel-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Olivier, Hello Hannes, Thanks to your pointer. I remember at the beginning of NSIS WG the great debate about on-path vs. off-path. The conclusion have been to choose to study only on-path within NSIS. In parallel, a BoF was setup to attempt to create an off-path WG. Unfortunately this was cancel too. NSIS was always chartered with a focus on path-coupled signaling in mind. Still, there was a lot of interest on transition scenarios that require some path-decoupled processing. In some sense, this is almost a philosophical discussion. For example, is RFC 2749 (about COPS and RSVP interaction) off-path/path-decoupled signaling? What about RFC 3084? Unfortunately, the term "off-path" is a little bit overloaded and means different things to different people (like the term 'NGN' is heavily overloaded as well). This caused a lot of confusion. If there is confusion then it is, in general, quite good to think about it a little bit longer. That's what we did. So, I'm surprise and the same time happy to see that NSIS will again start studying off-path or try to attempt a BoF. Don't be surprised. These aspects have been topic for many, many discussions in the past. In my opinion, DCPEL and off-path NSIS have more or less the same objective looking at 2 different approaches. Perhaps a good deal will to merge the 2 initiatives to form a larger and greater consensus. Why do you think that they look at two different approaches? In the same time, some ideas from EuQoS project (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cordeiro-nsis-hypath-00.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cordeiro-nsis-hypath-00.txt> ) have been submit to the NSIS WG about a such approach (in fact, we used NSIS for our Resource Manager communication). We have been in contact with the authors based on the NSIS interim meeting in May 2005 and the interop in Paris a few months later. It is very interesting to see this type of input. Ciao Hannes Regards, Olivier Tschofenig, Hannes a écrit : Hi Olivier, Hi David, I agree with David that there is essentially a lot of protocol work (hopefully "only" extensions) that seems to be envisioned by DCPEL. A few weeks ago Georgios has sent a mail asking for the relationship between the IETF work and other QoS work that is currently being done outside the IETF. There are many proposals being made today that need to be considered. These organizations are, for various reasons, really crazy about QoS and QoS signaling. As I noted at the last IETF meeting I think that the best place for these discussions is the Transport Area where this type of protocol discussions already happened in the past. The IETF NSIS work has discussed various aspects of path-decoupled signaling approaches in the past and there are still proposals floating around. You might be interesting to see that there will be a discussion about this subject at the next IETF meeting. See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg06007.html It might be interesting for you to attend the NSIS WG session to share your thoughts with other QoS minded people. Furthermore, a number of us have been in contact with the ITU-T (and the ITU-T liaison person from the ITU-T side, Hui-Lan Lu, in particular), including John Loughney and myself, to discuss how their requirements can be brought to the IETF/NSIS working group to have a fruitful discussion. Ciao Hannes Hello David, Here it is some comments from an operator (ok R&D part only) !!! David Kessens a écrit : Kathie asked me whether I would be willing to share the following mail with the group on my current thinking regarding a bof for dcepl. I obviously have no problem with that so please see below for my mail to Kathie regarding this topic. I, and the other ADs CC'ed on this mail, are interested in your comments. I hope this helps, David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com> <mailto:david.kessens@nokia.com> ----- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:58:32 -0800 From: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com> <mailto:david.kessens@nokia.com> To: Kathleen Nichols <nichols@pollere.com> <mailto:nichols@pollere.com> Subject: Re: proposed charter Kathie, On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 10:51:34AM -0800, Kathleen Nichols wrote: Attached is a draft charter. Scott and Paulo haven't had a chance to weigh in on it, so I might get some good input there. I would hope to have better milestones after an organizational meeting or BoF. I am sorry for the delay in my response. We normally spend some time to do an internal review with the IAB and IESG and I was waiting for Allison who promised comments. I am sympathic to the goals of this proposed work and I have received various comments from the IAB stating so. However, I also received comments that this work could be conflicting with existing IETF work in the NSIS and TSV working group. While the proposed charter doesn't necessarily would require protocol work, the drafts that I read would more or less require this. As you know, the Ops part of the Ops&Mgmt area usually doesn't do protocol work and limits itself to issues that are relevant to the operations I'm agree with your remarks. But, IMHO, the DCPEL WG have to deal with protocol: Not produce new protocol, but adapt or suggest modifications to relevant WG. For exemple, DCPA inter-domain communication could use NSIS. But, since NSIS have not yet design for this, it certainly need some modifications or, at least, to setup a new NSLP stack liek QoS-NSLP (thanks to the 2 layers signalling of NSIS which could facilitate the work). Another example concern the SLS interface aka the interface between service and DCPEL. Again, some stuff are usable like SIP, XML, ... but need some adaptation to carry properly the SLS from the service to the DCPEL. of the Internet. In addition, to make sure that things are relevant for operators, we normally want to have feedback, support and involvement from operators to avoid situations where vendors build all kind of complex solutions for problems that operators don't have. So far, I have seen some support from academia, research efforts within larger corporations and some vendors, but I have seen little evidence that this group is going to solve a problem that operators want to be solved. As I already mentioned in an earlier mail, I am really somewhat surprised that I haven't seen any operator on the list commenting that we need to start this work as I did expect that myself. Sorry to contradict you, but, if you look carefully at the mailing list, you could see that I support DCPEL initiative from the beginning (10/14/2005). During the last IETF meeting, FTR&D support this work during the OPS AREA meeting. In the same time, through the European IST projet EuQoS, I request support from other operator like TID (Telefonica I+D). Generally speaking, in Europe, most of the operator are search for such functionalities. Look to the work done in other fora such as ETSI/TISPAN, ITU-NGN-FG and now Q4/13 or more recently to the DSL Forum. In fact, IETF is the only place where QoS control, and in particular resource control, are not study in the scope proposed by the DCEPL initiative. Considering these issues, I think that it probably is not in your best interest to pursue a bof for this IETF. We will first need a much clearer answer on what problem is going to be solved *for operators*, get real support from operators behind this effort and after that we need to figure out whether that solution will involve protocol work or not. I could discuss this directly by phone as I'm not agree with you. But, operator need and want a global solution to setup and exchange QoS. If you just look at the VoIP service, inter-domain correspond to the "international" part of the traditional PSTN. For the moment, only study are conduct to the access network. But, it is not sufficient. For the moment, people think that over-provisioning will solve this issue. This is true for the bandwidth, but not for the other QoS parameters such as jitter, delay, loss ... However, VoIP services are vey sensible to the jitter and the delay. Without inter-domain and global QoS solution, it could not be possible to deploy a global VoIP QoS solution. In the same way, all multi-media service (IP TV, VoD, ...) need also QoS control. Adopting a signaling like NSIS is certainly a great solution, but which will be deploy not before 5 or 10 years due to the time scale operator renew their transfer plane equipments. At the opposite, a control plane such as DCPEL propose, could be deploy very quickly without changing their transfer plane. Today, operator are in a such situation that there is some industrial solution on the market, but no standard to compare them or inter-oper without development or major adaptation. Finally, ITU and ETSI will finalize first standard of the RACF function, but too much dedicated to conversational service. IMHO, it is really a mess that IETF will not conduct study on diffserv control plane. You can probably convince me to hold a bof anyways but considering the above stumbling blocks, I would advise you not to do so. I'm agree that the charter need more clarification and scope need more focus. But, this is a very complex subject. All peoples with whom I discussed about this, have a different opinion on the technical solution, but all are agree to said that we need a solution. Best regards, Olivier Dugeon David Kessens --- _______________________________________________ Dcpel mailing list Dcpel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel -- Project Manager for Network architecture and switching Division & FT/DR&D/CORE/M2I | mailto:Olivier.Dugeon@francetelecom.com 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin | Phone/Fax: +(33) 296 05 2880/1470 F-22307 LANNION | Mobile: +(33) 6 82 90 37 85 _______________________________________________ Dcpel mailing list Dcpel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel -- Project Manager for Network architecture and switching Division & FT/DR&D/CORE/M2I | mailto:Olivier.Dugeon@francetelecom.com 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin | Phone/Fax: +(33) 296 05 2880/1470 F-22307 LANNION | Mobile: +(33) 6 82 90 37 85
_______________________________________________ Dcpel mailing list Dcpel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel
- AW: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter] Tschofenig, Hannes
- Re: AW: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter] Paulo Mendes
- AW: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter] Tschofenig, Hannes