Re: [NSIS] Proposed NSIS charter

Hi John,

> >       1) I didn't quite understand, whether the WG would define a new
> > signalling protocol or not? Would, for example, an enhancement /
> > modification to RSVP be considered in or out of scope?
> 
> The intention is not to define a new protocol, but to enhance or
> modify an existing one, such as RSVP.

Could this "existing one" be interpreted as "approaches which have been 
already presented (perhaps under development)"? 

> >       2) If the goals include some sort of new QoS signalling, would
> > that include eg. bandwidth broker functionality, if needed, or just a
> > signalling mechanism? So, more entities concerned by the
> > signalling than just routers and end hosts?
> 
> One goal is to define the architecture.  This may include signaling
> to a proxy or to a bandwidth broker.

Do we have any "proxy" or "bandwidth broker" in existing protocols? IMO the 
answer depends on my previous question.

> >       3) Would the signalling be limited to a separate QoS signalling
> > protocol, or could the QoS signalling be part data packets,
> > so be in-band, as the DSCP in DiffServ or the INSIGNIA scheme. A
> > new IPv6 extension header for QoS?
> 
> I think those could be possibilities.  One could (though I won't)
> make a point that one result would be to create a use for the IPv6
> flow label.

Fine with me. However I think taking advantage of IPv6 extension header option,
would be beneficial compared with only an IPv6 flow label since it can carry 
more information. In fact the ID 
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mobileip-qos-requirements-01.txt 
did present such an approach.

Thanks

Xiaoming

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