[Ieprep] proposed charter
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Tue, 26 September 2006 04:37 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GS4gp-0000i7-Um; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:37:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GS4go-0000i2-Dt for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:37:02 -0400
Received: from [69.37.59.173] (helo=workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GS4gm-0007r8-VZ for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:37:02 -0400
Received: from workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8Q5LdcQ097727; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:21:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200609260521.k8Q5LdcQ097727@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: ieprep@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:21:39 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
Cc:
Subject: [Ieprep] proposed charter
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org
Two people sent me private email pointing to the email message with the proposed charter. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ieprep/current/msg02421.html Thanks. Seems mostly reasonable to me. One paragraph seems open ended and may be a source of trouble for other reasons. If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will generate only a requirements document for those groups to evaluate. If there is not an existing group that can extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will prepare requirements and discuss the extension of that protocol/mechanism or protocols/mechanisms within IEPREP. This is a promise to liason with anybody and everbody that intends to work in this area and to step back and let that other group do the protocol work. The IESG favors (with good reason) WG charters that propose to do work rather than WG charters that propose to sit back and watch the ITU do work in that area. A good example (and closely related to this sort of work) where the result coming from the ITU was not at all useful is the ITU QoS requirements work in the mid to late 1990s. This may be looking too much like more of the same. This is off topic for a charter discussion but please bear with me. If anyone responds to this part of the email, consider changing the subject. I'm getting way out ahead of the "requirements first, then solutions" process but the way I envision ETS working is as follows. SIP and microflow RSVP control flow must preceed traffic flow. SIP is seen only at ingress and egress. Microflow RSVP is seen only by SIP/RSVP gateways at ingress, egress, and provider boundaries. Within a provider's core, both the microflow RSVP control traffic and the actual traffic is typically carried within MPLS signaled with RSVP/TE, although this is entirely up to the provider (they are free to use edge-to=-edge microflow RSVP if they prefer). If MPLS/TE is used then the reservation reflects the sum of microflow RSVP reservations but the microflow reservations are seen only at provider boundaries. SIP/uflow-RSVP gateway addresses can/should be assigned such that at provider boundaries the control traffic can be diverted to dedicated SIP/RSVP capable hardware rather than put this function on the provider IP peering routers. Traffic is marked with DSCP marking across providers but within providers is typically carried in MPLS. If the number of priorities is small (possibly true for early deployments) then it may simplify deployment. There are only a few IP-Prec values available (some are already used for network control traffic). EF has only one value at this point. AF has 4 AF classes with 3 drop preferences in each and seems to be the most likely candidate but leaves no room for AF services of less importance than ETS such as commercial VPN. If the number of priorities is small it may be sufficient to use a DSCP to EXP mapping. Otherwise, a full Diffserv-TE implementation may be needed. As long as the number of priority/preemption classes remains too open ended, the mapping onto DSCP and Diffserv-TE remains uncertain. For example, there has to be a strong technical justification for five priority classes, not just "because ITU specified five" before there is much of a chance for a set of new DSCP values to be assigned as anything other than experimental. Note that there is nothing wrong with using a set of experimental DSCP values, even in early deployments. If multiple providers use these a set of DSCP values can be assigned in the non-experimental space with identical semantics and then later the experimental DSCP depricated when no longer used (and then reused by the next grand experiment). If no one ever uses some of the values assigned as experimental, then they can be depricated without replacements. Writing new code is work but changing to a new set of constants is not very hard. You know - running code and all that... Any effort which requires the whole world to agree before getting started will never get started. Curtis _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- [Ieprep] liason & the 5 priorities ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter (Implementation) Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Janet P Gunn
- [Ieprep] Re: liason & the 5 priorities Curtis Villamizar
- [Ieprep] Re: liason & the 5 priorities ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter (Implementation) Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels ken carlberg
- [Ieprep] Re: liason & the 5 priorities Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- RE: [Ieprep] proposed charter GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART)
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Janet P Gunn
- RE: [Ieprep] proposed charter Dolly, Martin C, ALABS
- ETS applicability, was Re: [Ieprep] proposed char… ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Rex Buddenberg