Re: AW: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter]

[Olivier Dugeon <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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.

In the same time, some ideas from EuQoS project 
(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).

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 
>>>       
>> <[e-mail]> -----
>>     
>>> Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:58:32 -0800
>>> From: David Kessens <[e-mail]>
>>> To: Kathleen Nichols <[e-mail]>
>>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> -- 
>> Project Manager for Network architecture and switching Division
>>  & FT/DR&D/CORE/M2I           | 
>> mailto:[e-mail]
>>  2, Avenue Pierre Marzin      | Phone/Fax:  +(33) 296 05 2880/1470
>>  F-22307 LANNION              | Mobile:     +(33) 6 82 90 37 85
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dcpel mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Project Manager for Network architecture and switching Division
 & FT/DR&D/CORE/M2I           | mailto:[e-mail]
 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin      | Phone/Fax:  +(33) 296 05 2880/1470
 F-22307 LANNION              | Mobile:     +(33) 6 82 90 37 85

_______________________________________________
Dcpel mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel