RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-00.txt
Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Mon, 02 February 2004 21:45 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14876 for <ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:45:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlsV-00035w-Rm for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:45:12 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12LjBp7011892 for ieprep-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:45:11 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlsV-00035j-Na for ieprep-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:45:11 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14821 for <ieprep-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:45:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlsT-00005Q-00 for ieprep-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:45:09 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlrS-0007im-00 for ieprep-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:44:07 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlqY-0007an-00 for ieprep-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:43:10 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlqO-00031A-Lf; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:43:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anlq0-00030r-SU for ieprep@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:42:37 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14651 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:42:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anlpy-0007T1-00 for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:42:34 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anlp7-0007HT-00 for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:41:42 -0500
Received: from amer-mta02.csc.com ([20.137.2.248]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anlns-000714-00 for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:40:24 -0500
Received: from csc.com (va-fch32.csc.com [20.6.39.233]) by amer-mta02.csc.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i12LfEsQ009257; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:41:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-00.txt
To: Ken Carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002
Message-ID: <OFA79FD89F.5FBF76FC-ON85256E2E.006FB397-85256E2E.00775820@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:43:33 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on VA-FCH32/SRV/CSC(Release 6.0.3|September 26, 2003) at 02/02/2004 04:38:31 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: ieprep-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ieprep-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Picky is fine. I have been known to be picky! Remaining comments in line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ken Carlberg" <carlberg To: "'Janet P Gunn'" <jgunn6@csc.com> @g11.org.uk> cc: <ieprep@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-00.txt 01/28/2004 01:40 PM Janet, The following response may be a bit picky on some issues/comments, but I feel it will be helpful to clarify things a bit. > I think that, under "normal" circumstances, the QoS mechanisms for > conventional VoIP will be more than adequate to support ETS, and "special > treatment" in Call Admission Control is what will be needed for ETS. Within the context of what we have written in the past in the IETF, ETS is an umbrella term that is meant to cover a wide variety of applications. Some of these applications (eg, I-Am-Alive) do not support the concept of CAC. So to say that "special treatment" (whatever that is) of CAC is what will be needed for ETS is rather too specific a statement to make. I think we can agree that in those applications used to support ETS and dependent on CAC, an ability to distinguish and perform CAC is of high interest and needs to be supported. [jpg] you are right, I should have said voice (and video) ETS applications. Which prompts me to ask if there will be a single domain IP telephony ETS requirements document. > As Fred Baker says in draft-baker-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works.00.txt, if call > admission is working properly, traffic marking is not needed in normal > operations. It is when there are route changes - typically due to network > failures - that marking is needed. Keep in mind that Fred's draft is in respect to MLPP. Arguments from the draft may be applied to other circumstances, but I would refrain from treating it as a blanket statement for all applications and situations. [jpg] Agree, not a blanket statement. But my point is that when something happens to/in the network, that is the time when "extraordinary" treatment may make sense (recognizing that even without extraordinary treatment, this is still vastly superior to the PSTN situation, where ANY disruption to the network (on the particular call path) makes the call go away). This is particularly true for voice and video applications. Less so, I agree, for elastic applications. I've worked on systems in the past where "marking" was used to separate traffic into either different physical subnets or different virtuals paths -- neither case where the route changes existed because of network failures. > When there are network failures, the > capacity and route assignments on which call admission was based no longer > apply, the QoS cannot be guaranteed until the new routes are stabilized, > and the call admission process adapts to the new capacity and routes. > This may be a very local effect, of quite short duration. But it has a > significant impact on the call quality of the calls that are affected. > While that paper addresses an IP implementation of MLPP, many of the same > concerns apply to ETS. Ok > Network failures, and/or massive and sustained statistical anomalies > (large, local bursts), and the associated route changes, are the problems > we need to focus on. > > It is in this context that ETS calls must be given a high probability of > meeting the QoS criteria, even when network congestion and or damage are > severe. Ok. > The requirements in draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-00.txt don't seem to > address this, and the framework in draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-frame-00.txt > doesn't seem to solve it. Actually, that's fine. The former draft is not aimed at a specific application or system (this is stated in the draft). It is admittedly broad and acts as a foundation for the context of a single domain. The latter draft is not meant to offer solutions, but rather to discuss applicable and related protocols that one *could* encounter within the specific scope of a single domain. I will expand this below where you have a specific question. [jpg] I guess my unwritten question here is "Are you planning to have a document which DOES address this." I agree that it is somewhat out-of-scpoe for the two new documents. > In draft-gunn-ieprep-ip-telephony-gap-00.txt we address the need to > support ETS SLAs to provide High Probability Toll-Quality Voice - ETS > calls > must be given adequate resources through the network to ensure a high > probability that their packets suffer loss, delay, and jitter consistent > with achieving toll-quality voice even when network congestion and / or > damage are severe. <snip> > What is the appropriate way to reflect these concerns? Through a draft (and I state it with no intention of being obnoxiously obvious). If your question is, how does one deal with the three seemingly related drafts? 1. draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-00.txt, 2. draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-frame-00.txt, and 3. draft-gunn-ieprep-ip-telephony-gap-00.txt, then I would follow the position I stated above and have (3) simply be a more specific continuation of what has been stated in (1) and (2) above. In my view it may be more constructive to be very specific and identify specific systems/efforts like GETS or NS/EP or WPS. If the chairs or AD feel differently, I'm sure they'll chime in. [jpg] Thanks, that is encouraging. Janet Cheers, -ken _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-… Internet-Drafts
- Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Fred Baker
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Ken Carlberg
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Steve Silverman
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… James M. Polk
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Ken Carlberg
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… James M. Polk
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Ken Carlberg
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Steve Silverman
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Eagan, Christopher
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Janet P Gunn
- RE: [Ieprep] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-… Ken Carlberg