RE: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draft-ietf-diffserv -new-terms-06.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Wed, 14 November 2001 16:34 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01982 for <diffserv-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:34:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA00174 for diffserv-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:34:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28478; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:14:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28412 for <diffserv@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:14:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail1.lucent.com [192.11.226.161]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00636; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:14:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id fAEGDv607593; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:13:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <WNHBYHXS>; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:13:52 +0100
Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0DF1FF42@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Dan Grossman <dan@dma.isg.mot.com>, Andrea Westerinen <andreaw@cisco.com>
Cc: "Diffserv@Ietf. Org" <diffserv@ietf.org>, "Policy@Ietf. Org" <policy@ietf.org>, "Bert Wijnen (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: RE: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draft-ietf-diffserv -new-terms-06.txt
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:13:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Diffserv Discussion List <diffserv.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: diffserv@ietf.org
Thanks Andrea for the detailed review And I see we have a discussion going with some agrrements comiung out already. Looks like we may expect one more revision. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Grossman [mailto:dan@dma.isg.mot.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:09 PM > To: Andrea Westerinen > Cc: Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert Wijnen (Bert) > Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for > draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt > > > Andrea, > Thanks for the careful review. > > Dan, I was asked to do a review of the "new-terms" draft > wrt PolTerm. In > > general, there is good correspondence, but I have a few > minor comments. > > > > 1. In Section 2, in the second paragraph, it would be > helpful to reference > > the Policy Terminology RFC XXX > (draft-ietf-policy-terminology-04.txt, > > waiting in the editor's queue) explicitly, since that supports your > > conclusions of SLAs being of a contractual nature. > > Agreed. > > > > > 2. The SLS definition in "new-terms" is a bit different > (more restrictive) > > than the definition in PolTerm. The PolTerm definition > tries to straddle > > the contractual versus service/conditioning aspects of an > SLS. PolTerm > > states that an SLS ... > > Specifies handling of customer's traffic by a network > > provider. It is negotiated between a customer and the > > provider, and (for example) in a DiffServ environment, > > defines parameters such as specific Code Points and the > > Per-Hop-Behavior, profile characteristics and treatment of > > the traffic for those Code Points. An SLS is a specific SLA > > (a negotiated agreement) and its SLOs (the individual > > metrics and operational data to enforce) to guarantee > > quality of service for network traffic. > > It might be valuable to mention that the "new-terms" > definition further > > restricts that specified in PolTerm, for the DiffServ environment. > > I'd be hesitant to alter the Diffserv definition, since this > was subject of a > great deal of working group debate. However, some words to > the effect that > you suggest would be appropriate. > > > > 3. In the last paragraph of Section 2, where you quote from > the PolTerm RFC, > > could you make this a normative reference? > > Ok. I'd lost track of the Polterm draft, and frankly forgot > to check the RFC > Editors queue for its status. The way this was done > reflected a concern that > this draft would get hung up behind the Polterm draft > indefinitely. Since the > Polterm draft is ahead, it makes perfect sense to make the > Polterm RFC > normative. > > > > > 4. In the last sentence of Section 2, you say "Therefore, > the relationship > > between an SLS and a service provisioning policy is that > the latter is, in > > part, the set of rules that define the parameters and range > of values that > > may be in the former." Would it be reasonable to say "... > define and manage > > to the parameters and range of values ..."? The word > "define" seems too > > restrictive. > > > I'm having problems parsing your proposed sentence. How can > a set of rules > "manage to" parameters and and a range of values? > > > And, a few nits: > > 5. There are several weird quotation marks in the Status (``work in > > progress'' and ``1id-abstracts.txt''). > There's some wierd character mappings in my HPUX workstation. > I'll move it > back to a windows platform and spot clean when this goes to > the RFC editor. > > > > > 6. In Section 6, there are a few typos... > > 'Hence the imperitive was"SHOULD" rather than "SHALL"' - should be > > "imperative" and needs a space after "was" > oops... > > > 'An egress DS-node at the edge of one DS-domain forwards > packets an ingress > > DS-node at the edge of another DS domain.' - needs a "to" > after "forwards > > packets" > > well spotted. > > > > 7. Is there a reason for the last paragraph of Section 8 to > look different > > than the previous RFC summaries? The grammar is written to > correspond, but > > the missing ":" makes the paragraph difficult to read. > > Will look into, thanks. > > > > Thanks for considering these. > > Thanks again for the review. > > Andrea > > > Dan > _______________________________________________ diffserv mailing list diffserv@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html
- RE: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draf… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)