Re: [QOS_INBAND] next steps?

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2007-1-31, at 4:55, ext John Harper wrote:
> When we discussed this in San Diego, I believe the agreement was  
> that some
> time would be scheduled in NSIS to look at the requirements for  
> this work,
> and I was about to get in touch with John Loughney to ask about  
> this when I
> got your mail.

that seems reasonable. NSIS is currently somewhat busy with their  
existing documents, so an alternative may be to schedule some time in  
a different meeting.

> In the meantime I also learned about the work on TCP QuickStart  
> which I
> guess must also be under your directorship. From a requirements  
> point of
> view, at least as far as TCP-based applications are concerned,  
> there is a
> great deal of similarity between these two topics. It would seem to  
> make
> sense, given the effort that has already gone into QuickStart, to  
> address
> this further. How would you advise that this should be addressed?

In my view, QuickStart has a much narrower scope that the QoS-inband  
proposal - there is no quality-of-service reservations or  
negotiations with QS, it simply enabled flows to more efficiently  
ramp up to consume currently idle path capacity. I agree that the of  
an IP option is similar, but the mechanisms surrounding QS seem much  
simpler.

Lars

_______________________________________________
QOS_INBAND mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/qos_inband