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

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Curtis,

> >     To exploit capabilities provided by the SVC-based Data Link
> >     subnetworks we propose to allow SVC management to be directly
> >     controlled by applications,
> > 
> >  This is a bad idea and runs counter to rsvp and int-serv directions.
> 
> You cut this off.  It is counter to rsvp and int-serv directions
> because the application passes QoS requirement or traffic
> characterisitics through RSVP (possible passed it within the same box)
> and indirectly controls SVC management, not directly.

First of all, there are two distinct questions:

1) Whether allowing SVC management to be directly controlled by applications,
   and specifically by the QoS and/or traffic requirements of the applications
   is a good idea or not

2) Whether allowing SVC management to be directly controlled by applications
   and specifically by the QoS and/or traffic requirements of the applications
   runs counter to rsvp and int-serv directions

So, I would suggest we'll debate these two questions separately.

Wrt to the first question, I've yet to see any compelling technical
argument that would show why placing SVC management ("local/remote",
"dedicated/shared") under the control of QoS is a bad idea.

Yakov.