RE: [QOS_INBAND] next steps?

Lars,

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.

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?

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert@nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:53 AM
> To: qos_inband@ietf.org
> Subject: [QOS_INBAND] next steps?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> since the BOF deadline for Prague has come and gone, I'm wondering
> what the current status of the QoS-inband proposal is?
> 
> At the last IETF meeting, there was agreement that the community
> interested in this proposal would bring it to the IETF, because it
> relies on extensions to IETF protocols that we should discuss. (There
> was also a related IETF liaison statement.) After the San Diego
> meeting, there was some encouraging follow-on activity, and draft-
> harper-inband-signalling-requirements has recently been posted. What
> is the plan for next steps?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars
> 

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