Re: [NSIS] AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Fri, 13 November 2009 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4923A6A42 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWxUoDNUEA-m for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF08D3A6918 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:54:29 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1258142098!31396136!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25]
Received: (qmail 7440 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2009 19:54:58 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-5.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Nov 2009 19:54:58 -0000
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nADJsv2Z016306 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:54:58 -0600
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nADJspaM016090 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:54:51 -0600
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nADJsplG007463 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:54:51 -0500
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nADJshQH007180 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:54:43 -0500
Message-Id: <200911131954.nADJshQH007180@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-216-122.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.216.122](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20091113195441gw10014qtve>; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:54:42 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.216.122]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:54:39 -0500
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm@tools.ietf.org, NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AD87985.6030304@ericsson.com>
References: <4AD87985.6030304@ericsson.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [NSIS] AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:54:30 -0000

NSIS WG,

At 08:47 AM 10/16/2009, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>3. Section 3.1: What are the definitions of the Bp and M parameter?

Those of us who have discussed Magnus' comment above are
trying to agree on a path forward.

Both parameters have standard definitions:
A reference definition for M, max datagram size, is in RFC 2212.
ITU-T Y.1221 seems to be the only standard where Bp,
the peak Bucket Size of a dual token bucket is specified.

I have proposed removing Bp because the additional complexity
of a dual token bucket is not essential to the main subject
of the draft (the Y.1541 classes).
I have asked at this week's ITU-T meeting, and the only implementors
of ITU-T Y.1221 indicated that they were not using Bp,
only the parameters for a single token bucket.

Jerry Ash would like to retain Bp, citing the informational
ITU-T Supplement referenced in the draft, and indicated that
dual token buckets are well-established and non-controversial.

Others have asked me to phrase the question to the list.
So, with the above background, should we simplify and drop Bp,
or keep it in?

thanks and regards,
Al