RE: [Diffserv] Diffserv at SLC and in future

Hi,

Does this mean that no new PDB draft could be put forward?

Thanks,
-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Nichols [mailto:nichols@packetdesign.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:22 PM
> To: diffserv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Diffserv] Diffserv at SLC and in future
> 
> 
> 
> Diffservers,
> 
> We have decided not to hold a diffserv WG meeting at the
> Salt Lake City IETF.
> 
> As you know, the two documents we had in WG Last Call have passed
> with minor comments. This means that the WG has effectively completed 
> all its milestones. All our drafts except one are on the way to
> RFC publication. The differentiated services story isn't over,
> but this WG has essentially finished the job it was set up to do
> in early 1998.
> 
> We do have two PDB drafts in progress that aren't yet
> ready to publish, draft-ietf-diffserv-pdb-ar-01.txt and 
> draft-ietf-diffserv-pdb-bh-03.txt. Both need to have
> their experience sections filled in before they can
> be advanced to RFC, but they are still "alive" as
> documents and list discussion, particularly of experience,
> is still relevant. We note that the next revision of
> the Bulk Handling PDB draft is in Roland Bless's hands (to
> add experience) and, we believe, is expected in Jan or Feb or 02. 
> Draft-ietf-diffserv-pdb-vw is dormant at this time
> since the co-authors did major revision of a
> PDB definition for circuit emulation. This may be resurrected 
> with an experience section in the future.
> 
> When PDB drafts are ready in terms of the guidelines in 
> RFC 3086, they should be posted as drafts and discussed by email
> on this list.
> 
> Another potential use of the diffserv list is to raise issues
> that are barriers to implementation and require further IETF
> action, but such should not be confused with general implementation
> questions, which should go to the ds-implmentation list. We
> (especially BC) will be quick to let you know if you have the
> wrong list!
> 
> You may also be interested by 
> draft-conta-diffserv-fl-classifier-01.txt.
> However, since the diffserv MIB already allows an IPv6 flow label as 
> a classifier element, we probably do not need any additional standards
> action in this area.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
>   Kathie Nichols
>   diffserv WG co-chairs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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