RE: [Dcpel] some comments on draft-vandenberghe-dcpel-basics-00.txt

"Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk> Mon, 06 March 2006 09:24 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGBxS-0001JU-R7; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:24:50 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGBxR-0001JP-Up for dcpel@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:24:49 -0500
Received: from rsys001x.roke.co.uk ([193.118.201.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGBxQ-000862-F5 for dcpel@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:24:49 -0500
Received: from rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk (rsys005a [193.118.193.85]) by rsys001x.roke.co.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k269OeoW021261; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:24:41 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <44084977.2050101@docomolab-euro.com>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
X-OlkEid: E3848C283B9805ED3D7D8143AE3E0C6BFA536B88
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [Dcpel] some comments on draft-vandenberghe-dcpel-basics-00.txt
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:24:40 -0000
Message-ID: <A632AD91CF90F24A87C42F6B96ADE5C57EBE3C@rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dcpel] some comments on draft-vandenberghe-dcpel-basics-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcZAroLX4nHk2FzlQrq2HQfKTVt25w==
From: "Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk>
To: "Paulo Mendes" <mendes@docomolab-euro.com>
X-MailScanner-rsys001x: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-rsys001x-SpamCheck:
X-MailScanner-From: robert.hancock@roke.co.uk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: dcpel@ietf.org
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>
Errors-To: dcpel-bounces@ietf.org

hi,

> Hi Robert,
> 
> to add something to Kathie's e-mail, here is an extract of 
> your e-mail:
> 
> 
> Kathleen Nichols wrote:
> 
> > .......
> >
> >> 4. SIP interactions
> >
> >
> > The quick response is that we didn't plan to change SIP or 3312 but
> > to use that as a guideline for our framework, that is, our framework
> > should have a way to interoperate in the 3312 sense. It was 
> suggested
> > as a starting point (and maybe sufficient) for application
> > interaction.
> 
> [Paulo] It is also my opinion that 3312 can provide some guideline on 
> the interaction between applications and network, in both ends of a 
> communication session. However, IMO it is not clear the 
> interaction of 
> the SIP signaling and the DiffServ inter-domain interactions. 
> In 3312, 
> it is proposed to configure network resources e2e by means of 
> a protocol 
> like RSVP, being the RSVP signaling triggered by end-hosts at 
> both ends 
> of the communication session. In this context, 3312 approach 
> may be an 
> option to trigger the configuration of the necessary PDBs in all 
> DiffServ domains between the involved end-hosts. However, the most 
> suitable mechanism to configure PDBs in a set of DiffServ 
> domains should 
> be analyzed within DCPEL.

All of this is true. However, it doesn't explain why 3312 would be
relevant to DCPEL, unless I've fundamentally misunderstood the 
scope of DCPEL.
To put is more concretely, 3312 (as far as I understand) assumes
the existence of a resource request mechanism initiated by the end
point, and explains how end systems should manage the resource 
transaction and session signalling transaction. But the resource
management mechanism (RSVP, NSIS or whatever) doesn't care that 
3312 is being used - is DCPEL any different?
To put it another way, 3312 is about extending SDP with additional
information. Is it in the scope of DCPEL to take part in the SDP
negotiation?

r.

_______________________________________________
Dcpel mailing list
Dcpel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel