RE: [Tsvwg] Reviews of RSVP extensions (here, there, or ... ?)

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 12:02 PM 12/10/2004 +0000, [e-mail] wrote:

>So, there is interest (well I might be interested anyway) and the
>suggestion is that discussion should be via TSVWG to start with at
>least?
>
>OK then James, what extensions to RSVP are you wanting to be looked at?

At least the following IDs:

1 Extension (for now):
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-bw-reduction-00.txt

1 use-case of the previous ID:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-tsvwg-vpn-signaled-preemption-01.txt

1 (probably) BCP type ID:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-tsvwg-mlpp-that-works-02.txt

This next ID isn't really RSVP related (but is TSV related); however, 
reading it before the MLPP-That-Works ID (above) will make the MLPP ID's 
references less confusing.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-tsvwg-mlef-concerns-02.txt

Francois probably has one or more to add to this list.

comments on all of these are encouraged



>Louise
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of Bose, Pratik
> > Sent: 07 December 2004 17:58
> > To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Ted Faber; Jukka MJ Manner
> > Cc: James Polk (jmpolk); tsvwg
> > Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] Reviews of RSVP extensions (here, there,
> > or ... ?)
> >
> >
> > Actually I do remember the hum-test that Francois mentions,
> > and I also recall that a counter hum-test was taken for the
> > same question below (for those in favor of not supporting
> > this work here) and there was barely a hum for that - so I am
> > not sure whether the interest being low is really correct. I
> > am sure the minutes can confirm this info....
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > On Behalf Of Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:48 AM
> > > To: Ted Faber; Jukka MJ Manner
> > > Cc: James Polk (jmpolk); tsvwg
> > > Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] Reviews of RSVP extensions (here, there,
> > > or ... ?)
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > >> My impression hasn't been that there's been a shortage of time to
> > > >> present or discuss these drafts in TSVWG, but a low
> > > interest level.
> > > >> I'm not sure that a new group would address that.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's an impression; I could be way off.
> > >
> > > I remember a "Hum-test" was run during the WG.
> > > Although I can't remember the exat words, I believe the
> > > question was something like "is the RSVP work discussed in
> > > the TSVWG useful?"  or "is the RSVP work discussed in the
> > > TSVWG of interest to this audience?".
> > > I thought the "Hum-level" was clearly quite high. So my
> > > impression is that we had settled on that question and that
> > > there is agreement in progressing this work.
> > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > I think James' question is rather about whether this should
> > > be done under TSVWG or in some other group. Personally, I
> > > would suggest keeping it under TSVWG until there is a
> > > specific reason to change (e.g. there is a shortage of time
> > > to present/discuss all the items under TSVWG).
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Francois
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ted Faber
> > > >> http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP:
> > > >> http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
> > > >> Unexpected attachment on this mail? See
> > > >> http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
> > > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > tsvwg mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tsvwg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
> >


cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg