Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Wed, 27 September 2006 17:55 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSddR-0004xv-R5; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:55:53 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSddQ-0004xf-7Z for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:55:52 -0400
Received: from [69.37.59.173] (helo=workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSddO-0004oD-SR for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:55:52 -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 k8RIi6mW012987; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:44:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200609271844.k8RIi6mW012987@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:17:18 CDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20060927121544.02577ef8@email.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:44:06 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, ieprep@ietf.org
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
In message <4.3.2.7.2.20060927121544.02577ef8@email.cisco.com> "James M. Polk" writes: > > At 06:02 PM 9/26/2006 -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > >In message <2253DBB7-88CD-4E44-B515-58FDC129541F@cisco.com> > >Fred Baker writes: > > > > > > or whether drop priority even makes sense operationally, which it > > > doesn't. > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2006, at 4:22 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > > > > > For example, it is important > > > > to know how many priority/preemption values there will be and whether > > > > each priority requires three drop preferences as required by an AF > > > > service. > > > > > >Fred, > > > >For PSTN voice it doesn't but for elastic real time or elastic bulk > >transfer it might. What you are saying is that AF doesn't make sense. > > For voice? ETS == voice ? That was the question. We already know that in general: voice != AF Just confirming that Fred considers ETS to be voice only - at least for now. btw - I think that is a valid assumption - at least for now. > >Maybe it doesn't but if so the diffserv WG wasted a lot of time. > > Have you looked at who wrote 2597? If (ETS == voice) then restricting ETS to EF is not an issue. See next sentence quoted below. If ETS can also be elastic traffic of the type that was intended for AF but we have declared AF to be not useful for ETS, then it implies that AF is not useful. That's all I was try to imply, nothing more. Personally I think AF is useful that is why I wanted confirmation that Fred is assuming that ETS is voice only. > >Either that or maybe ETS will never be anything but voice traffic. We should be clear about assumptions. You and Fred seem to be assuming that ETS == voice, but also seem to be reluctant to say that. Here are some of my assumptions. We need to walk first, then run. The IETF should not assign DSCP codepoints for everyones pet idea. For now ETS is assumed to be voice. EF is fine for voice. A new codepoint allows traffic to be universally identified as being ETS related. That might be good or bad. ETS may later carry more than just voice. If needed the decision to use one codepoint can be revisited. There has never been anything stopping a deployment in which an experimental set of DSCP code points are used, EF-like, AF-like, or something else. There is nothing to prevent a ETS deployment from using the existing AF codepoints. If the use of experimental codepoints proves useful, additional ETS codepoints can be added later. 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