Re: [tsvwg] Choosing the Option for MULTI_INSTANCE Object...?

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

BTW - another option is to *not* attempt to bundle/group multiple 
instances of RSVP *SPECS or elements or objects and simply progress 
eachone at a time, with the first being the WG item

         draft-ietf-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec

handling multiple the need for TSPECs.

draft-polk-rsvp-multi-instance-object was written because someone 
else thought grouping was valuable, and I agreed to write it. We 
don't have to do this grouping effort, if that's what the WG wants 
(or is that "if that's *not* what the WG wants to do").

James
(with my author hat on)

At 10:43 PM 2/20/2013, James Polk wrote:
>I haven't gotten much feedback to the central question I posed the 
>WG in Atlanta, but I guess it's my fault for taking so long to write 
>this new draft. I'm referring to the draft at
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-rsvp-multi-instance-object-00.txt
>
>If you don't want ASCII art (and who does really?), view the preso for it at
>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-tsvwg-14.pdf
>
>The choice I'm referring to is on slide 4, about the construction of 
>the Object that includes multiple instances of other *SPECs, 
>elements and/or Objects so RSVP can be more efficient, and doesn't 
>have to go through several iterations of PATH followed by PATH_Err 
>(or ResvErr) before figuring out settling in on a reservation with 
>an acceptable set up parameters.
>
>In Atlanta, the room felt as though Option 1 (the middle one) was 
>best. I would like to hear from a larger number of folks on this list.
>
>James
>(with my author hat on)