Re: [Diffserv] Comments on the TCB of the Conceptual Model - msg 1 of 2

["John Strassner" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian, comments inline.

regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Strassner" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Diff Serv" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Comments on the TCB of the
Conceptual Model - msg 1 of 2


> John,
>
> > I think the fundamental problem that I have with this
draft
> > is that when it says "Model", I keep expecting to see a
> > generic diagram that shows how the different functional
> > elements described in the draft can fit together to
perform
> > higher-level functions. Although there are some examples
> > that show how some functions can be implemented, there
is
> > no generic model to use as a design guide. I believe
that
> > this needs to be added before the draft can go to Last
> > Call.
>
> This is not the intention of the document. It is made very
clear,
> I think, that it is a loose model as a guideline for the
MIB
> and the PIB, and that it is non-normative and is not a
specific
> implementation guide. So the sense of the WG has certainly
not
> been to move it in the direction you suggest. What I get
from
> your comment is that we need to strengthen the disclaimer
to make
> this even more explicit and unmistakable.

Well, the abstract of the draft says, and I quote:

  "This model serves as the rationale for the design of an
   SNMP MIB [DSMIB] and for other configuration interfaces
   (e.g.  [DSPIB]): these should all be based upon and
   consistent with this model."

This seems like pretty strong words to me that specifically
state that this document should be capable for use as the
design guideline for MIBs and PIBs.

If this is true, then I humbly submit that a picture is
worth a thousand words. Furthermore, this is supposed to be
a model, and if the model doesn't show how functions are
generically configured, it isn't a model.

> > Perhaps the solution to this is to combine this draft
with
> > the generic model in the soon-to-be-released QoS Device
info
> > model draft.
>
> Since it is not intended to be a formal model, and is
intended
> to be at a significantly finer granularity than I believe
> the policy model was expected to cover, frankly I don't
see
> this as a likely solution.

If it isn't intended to be a formal model, why is it called
a model? No pun intended, but I fail to see the purpose of
this draft in this case.

As far as level of granularity, please read the QoS device
draft, I think you'll be a bit surprised here.

>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> diffserv mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
> Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/
>
>


_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/