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

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Curtis,

> The remaining
> difference may be that I wish to document the desirable case to be a
> standardized parameterization which could be used to allow indirection
> in cases where it was needed.  I'd like to document the case where no
> appropriate parameterization is available in a standard protocol
> making it necessary to restrict SVC management for an application
> class as a practical reality that is less desirable and hopefully
> temporary situation as the reservation parameterization can be
> expected to evolve slowly but steadily.  Some vendors may decide they
> don't want their proprietary local/remote "trick" standardized.  IMO
> the architecture document can acknowlege this (if you insist) but
> strongly discourage the practice.

While I would agree with what you said here, I am not sure whether this
belongs to the APR document. So, I'd like to get a feedback from other
folks on the list whether they think this should be included in the
document, or whether this issue should be addressed in some other
WG, like rsvp or int-serv.

Yakov.