Re: [NSIS] section 3.5 in nsis-req-00.txt, Section Exclusions

"Andreas Kassler" <kassler@informatik.uni-ulm.de> Fri, 15 March 2002 11:25 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 GAA26479 for <nsis-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:25:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA11858 for nsis-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:25:09 -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 GAA11184; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:08:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA11149 for <nsis@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:08:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from vs.informatik.uni-ulm.de (vs.informatik.uni-ulm.de [134.60.77.243]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26255 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:08:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lamagra (lamagra.informatik.uni-ulm.de [134.60.77.31]) by vs.informatik.uni-ulm.de (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with SMTP id g2FBBK028214; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:11:20 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: vs.informatik.uni-ulm.de: Host lamagra.informatik.uni-ulm.de [134.60.77.31] claimed to be lamagra
Message-ID: <001501c1cc1c$5371ebd0$1f4d3c86@informatik.uniulm.de>
From: Andreas Kassler <kassler@informatik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Juan-Carlos.Rojas@alcatel.fr, Gabor Fodor <Gabor.Fodor@era-t.ericsson.se>
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, brunner@ccrle.nec.de, nsis@ietf.org
References: <OF5BD842C4.07D47B31-ONC1256B7D.0038E701@netfr.alcatel.fr>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] section 3.5 in nsis-req-00.txt, Section Exclusions
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:24:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: nsis-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nsis-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Juan,
>
> Concerning the SDP story, I agree with you that not all the SDP
information
> will be mapped to NSIS information, but surely all or almost all the SDP
> information *will be used by the application level* to derive the needed
> NSIS information.

I completely agree on this issue. It may be of interest for NSIS, that there
is a
draft related to SDPng that exactly describes requirements for that. It is
draft-guenkova-mmusic-e2enp-sdpng-00.txt, that is available from:
http://www-vs.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ietf/mmusic/sdp-ng/drafts/draft-guenkova
-mmusic-e2enp-sdpng-00.txt
The idea is to negotiate application level QoS parameters like frame rate,
size, quality,..
and capabilties like codecs using SDPng and provide a set of potential QoS
contracts
at application/session level that can be used to describe alternative QoS
parameters
for a multimedia session. It is then the responsibility of a terminal to
proceed with
network ressource reservation (if it likes to do so) using e.g. NSIS. But
the mapping
from application level QoS to network related QoS parameters (like
bandwidth, loss rate)
should be out of the scope for NSIS.

> My understanding is that this is fully inline with my original proposal,
> that is "the mapping on NSIS information ... is out of the scope of the
> NSIS WG"
>
> Concerning the term "bearer class", I agree that maybe the term itself
does
> not matter, providing that there is a clear agreed definition. Now I know
> what you were referring to; I don't love the usage of the word "class" in
> this context, because generally this means a group of things, entities,
> etc. having common characteristics, which is not the actual case.
>
> This is surely an issue in Brunner draft, where the expression "QoS
Service
> Class" is defined as "specify the QoS requirements of a traffic flow or
> aggregate"; I fear that the word "class" is also very confusing here. As
an
> example, this definition does not match the 3GPP definition of "QoS Class"
> (conversational, streaming, interactive and background).
>
> Best regards
> Juan Carlos
>
>
>
>
Kind regards, Andreas


_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis