Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

> > The belief that ATM SVCs are more desirable than multiple IP
> > hops is one that is in line with the objectives of ROLC.
> 
> I disagree: I thought the objective of ROLC was to provide a protocol mechanism 
> which would *allow* for shortcut VCCs. There is nothing in the ROLC charter (and
> there is certainly nothing in the NHRP draft) about whether that is always 
> the desirable outcome or not. The charter needs updating if you think that this
> assumption is an implicit part of ROLC's work.

While it would be hard to say that the ATM SVCs are *always* more desirable,
I think it would be fair to say that there are QoS requirements where ATM SVC
would be preferred to IP hop-by-hop resource reservations.  It all depends
on the QoS requirements.

> I repeat, this draft is an architectural draft with much wider implications
> than the narrow focus of ROLC. That was the gist of my previous posting
> asking that this draft be posted much more widely than just the ROLC group.
> There is an implicit assumption being made that this draft represents the 
> views of the IAB (same as 1620), not just the ROLC group. 

The only correlation between this I-D and the IAB is that one of the co-authors
of this document (myself) is an IAB member. So, would you also implicitly
assume that all the other I-Ds I authored/co-authored represent the views of the
IAB ? 

Yakov.