Subject: Re: [NSIS] req. section 5.1.9

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:55:11 +0100

Hi Anders,

I have the impression that the text you propose mixes two requirements we
have already in the draft.
5.1.4 Decoupling of protocol and information it is carrying
5.1.9 Independence of signaling and provisioning paradigm

If you agree, I would propose to leave it as it is, unless there is a
specific reason for combining the requirements.

CU,
Sven.

[email-masked] on 22/03/2002 00:12:28

  To:          [email-masked]                                  
                                                              
  cc:          [email-masked](bcc: Sven VAN DEN         
               BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL)                              

  Subject      [NSIS] req. section 5.1.9                      
  :                                                           

All,

I believe section 5.1.9 needs a small update. The proposed changes have
been discussed with, but not agreed to by the draft editor.

Current text:
The QoS signaling should be independent of the paradigm and mechanism of
QoS provisioning. The independence allows for using the NSIS protocol
together with various QoS technologies.

Proposed text:
The architecture should support independence between signaling, what is
being signaled and how a device chooses to use the information that is
being signaled. This allows for different information being signaled as
well as devices behaving differently to what is being signaled.

Anders

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:36:13 +0100

Yes I agree. I didn't intend to mix them. However, what I set out to do was to remove the term provisioning, because it implies different things for different people. 

> specific reason for combining the requirements.
agreed for the time being. I'd try to come up with a better term than "provisioning" however I cannot come up with one during the IESG planery... 

Anders

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:02:44 +0100

Hi Anders,

I see two possibilities:

1. define the term provisioning so it is clear to everyone what is meant in
this case
2. say something like:
"NSIS signaling is independent of the (QoS) technology that is used for the
local implementation of the requested QoS."

The idea is to leave it open whether you have over-provisioning, diffserv,
... right?

What do you think?
Sven.

[email-masked] on 22/03/2002 03:36:13

  To:          Sven VAN DEN BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL          
                                                              
  cc:          [email-masked], [email-masked]            

  Subject      SV: [NSIS] req. section 5.1.9                  
  :                                                           

Yes I agree. I didn't intend to mix them. However, what I set out to do was
to remove the term provisioning, because it implies different things for
different people.

> specific reason for combining the requirements.
agreed for the time being. I'd try to come up with a better term than
"provisioning" however I cannot come up with one during the IESG planery...

Anders