[tsvwg] Questions about draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 21 November 2012 07:12 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BF521F884F for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:12:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZET9eSlNcBr8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0559321F8849 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 460122DC359; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:12:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.29]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1E5CF35C05B; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:12:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.29]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:12:12 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:12:11 +0100
Thread-Topic: Questions about draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
Thread-Index: Ac3Ht4a6Pjym/pD4T7aeiC7MeouaDA==
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E9751EE10@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E9751EE10PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.24.110314
Cc: LEVIS Pierre OLNC/OLPS <pierre.levis@orange.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, JACQUENET Christian OLNC/OLN <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>
Subject: [tsvwg] Questions about draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:12:22 -0000
Dear Ruediger, I read your draft and I have some questions for clarification: (1) How to position your proposal with regards to RFC5160 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5160)? (2) Wouldn't be more appropriate to have a discussion using PDB rather than PHBs when discussing interconnection matters? (3) Binding two class of services is mainly driven by out-of-band agreements. The document makes use of SLA without having a reference to what may be contained in such agreement. FWIW, we edited a document to help in this area (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile-02). Do you see a value in standardizing such profile? Thanks. Cheers, Med
- [tsvwg] Questions about draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [tsvwg] Questions about draft-geib-tsvwg-diff… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] Questions about draft-geib-tsvwg-diff… mohamed.boucadair