Re: draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06

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

At 05:46 PM 3/17/2011, Lou Berger wrote:
>I too think this is useful work and worth bringing into the WG.

Thanks!!


>Authors,
>
>I have some comments/questions that can be addressed as the draft moves
>forward (and don't need discussing if the draft isn't):
>
>1) a real nit:
>I suspect that the <flow descriptor list> RBNF is broken, and
>[MULTI_FLOWSPEC] should be [ <MULTI_FLOWSPEC> ] .

yep, sorry - this is obvious

>  (You might want to add a reference to 5511 too.)

probably


>2) I could see this as a more generally applicable problem, in
>particular it could apply to the non-IntServ class types supported by
>RSVP (TSPEC/FLOWSPEC).  What do you think about having the MULT_xxSPEC
>objects being defined solely on the RSVP level (perhaps using
>subobjects) rather than as defined now which is a change to RSVP and
>IntServ?

Hadn't thought about this before. We'll think about how this would 
work and if there are any gotchas.

Thanks for the comments and support.

James


>Lou
>
>PS I'm on the rsv-dir mailing list, but not listed on the web page so
>have no idea if this means this is a comment as a directorate member or not.
>
>PPS I won't be in the Prague session as I'll be chairing a WG at the
>same time, but do support this work as a WG document if the topic comes up.
>
>
>On 3/17/2011 10:16 AM, Bruce Davie wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm happy to discuss the future steps for this draft.
> >>
> >> I'll also take an action to check the status and then seek help 
> from the RSVP directorate, the last note I saw from rsv-dir was 09/11/2010.
> >>
> >
> > You'll note that Fred recently posted my note from Nov 1, 2010, 
> and Scott Bradner just commented as a directorate member.
> >
> > So, the 3 directorate members who have commented are in favor of 
> adopting this draft.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >> I'll also try to sumarise where I see this draft has reached. I 
> can't do this today though.
> >>
> >> Gorry
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06
> >> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:23:32 -0700
> >> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> >> To: ken carlberg <[e-mail]>
> >> CC: tsvwg <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:56 AM, ken carlberg wrote:
> >>
> >>> hello,
> >>>
> >>> my understanding is that the decision is still open as to 
> whether this individual draft should become a working group 
> draft.  I'd like to express my interest in making that 
> migration.  My first comments on the draft came way back at the 
> IETF-stockholm meeting in '09, where I brought up questions about 
> multicast.  The current draft satisfies these questions, and other 
> comments I have made since then.  I think this effort is properly 
> baked for acceptance as a working group draft.
> >>>
> >>> But perhaps more importantly, I very much like its focus on 
> optimization.  The bulk of the work we come across at the IETF 
> either introduces new stuff, or augmentations to existing 
> efforts.  Its refreshing to see work that focuses on optimizing 
> something we already have.
> >>>
> >>> my 2 cents,
> >>>
> >>> -ken
> >>
> >> I think a relevant note is:
> >>
> >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Bruce Davie wrote:
> >>> On these 2 drafts:
> >>> On Oct 26, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec
> >>>>    RSVP directorate to be consulted.
> >>>>    WG interest in this topic recorded at IETF-78.
> >>>>    Charter update would be needed to progress this work.
> >>>>    5 Reviews needed to determine energy/technical direction.
> >>>>    Author will update -04.
> >>>>    New revision expected.
> >>>>
> >>>> draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption
> >>>>    RSVP directorate to be consulted.
> >>>>    WG needs to assess if this topic should be a work item.
> >>>
> >>> Two members of the RSVP directorate (myself and Lixia) have 
> read these drafts and support their adoption by the WG. Below are 
> some specific comments that I sent to the chairs, but I failed to 
> send earlier to the WG. I believe at least one more directorate 
> member has read these drafts but I've not received feedback one way 
> or another about adoption from other directorate members.
> >>
> >> It would be good to know whether other members of the RSVP 
> Directorate have commented. If there has been a charter discussion, 
> I have managed to miss it.
> >>
> >> As to the draft itself, I think there is reason to support it, 
> as we now have multi-rate codecs that can interact with it; rather 
> than firing up, disturbing competing traffic to a degree that the 
> codec data experiences loss and other traffic presumably does as 
> well, and then backing off to a more acceptable rate (which is what 
> rate-adaptive codecs do), it would be nice of the network could say 
> "that will happen if you choose this rate, but if you choose this 
> lower rate you will be better off." Having multiple T-Specs gives 
> the network the option of making that choice on the first pas 
> rather than taking binary decisions on multiple sequential decision steps.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >