Subject: [NSIS] Next steps for the analysis document

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:23:22 +0300 (EEST)

Hi all,

I would need to make (hopefully final) changes to the Analysis draft. I'm
trying to figure out what needs to be done. I would need the WG's view
(yes, that means you, too) on what is missing (needs work) in the draft.  
At least issues 1,2 and 3 would need the WGs view as a whole, other items
are more or less directed to certain individuals or the draft editors.  
Here is a list of issues:

1) Remove the Appendix? Was there some comments about keeping it, I think 
someone liked it in Vienna? Or was it clear to remove it?

2) Add a short review of SICAP, a protocol similar to BGRP? (See Helena
Rute Sofia's email on July 16th 2003) (SICAP description July 17th 2003)

3) What about adding an RMD evaluation? Or any other text? (see Georgios'
email on July 17 2003) (some discussions July 17th -> July 22nd, Sep 5)

4) Hannes to review the security section? A short summary and pointers
to his documents?

5) Section 3.5 needed more proof, need to ask Ping to review the text.  
See John's email on July 7th 2003.

6) Is there text that could be taken from Michael Thomas' draft on 
mobility issues?

7) Add a reference that shows how YESSIR is as good as claimed in Section
6.2.1 (Ping?)

8) Add reference to Tenet (mail from Alejandro Avella Jul 12 2003):
(Page 20, Section 6.1)
Anindo Banerjea, Domenico Ferrari, Bruce A. Mah, Mark Moran, Dinesh C. 
Verma, Hui Zhang
The Tenet Real-Time Protocol Suite: Design, Implementation, and  
Experiences (1996)
IEEE ACM Transactions on Networking
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/banerjea96tenet.html

9) Split the references into (only?) "Non-Normative"

10) Add a summary

Regards,
Jukka

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

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:32:12 +0200

Hi Jukka

Regarding point 3) we have had some discussions within the WG.
Hopefully I have had provided the required information.

Best regards,
Georgios

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:46:29 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Georgios, 

I know there has been some discussions, that is why I put those pointers
to some of them. I was still wondering whether people want to see the RMD
stuff added, whether it makes the draft better by adding new insights, for
example?

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Oct 2003 13:31:50 +0200

Hi all,

I have a request with regard to this document. There's this
abstract about my own work:

   Michael Welzl organized a special session "ABR to the Internet" in
   SCI 2001, and gathered some inputs for requesting an "ABR to the
   Internet" BOF in IETF#51, which was intended to introduce explicit
   rate feedback related mechanisms for the Internet (e2e, edge2edge)
   but failed because of "missing community interest"
   (http://www.tk.uni-linz.ac.at/~michael/abr-internet/).

Please remove this outdated URL. It would be great if you could
change the paragraph as follows:

   Michael Welzl organized a special session "ABR to the Internet" in
   SCI 2001, and gathered some inputs for requesting an "ABR to the
   Internet" BOF in IETF#51, which was intended to introduce explicit
   rate feedback related mechanisms for the Internet (e2e, edge2edge)
   but failed because of "missing community interest". His continued
   efforts are documented at http://www.welzl.at/ptp.

I still put effort into my protocol, which _IS_ a signaling
protocol that somehow relates to QoS, but it is more closely
related to ABR-like ("performance") signaling. I have been
approached several times by colleagues who recommended to propose
my work in NSIS - however, as PTP does not set up state of any
kind but only retrieves performance parameters, I don't think
that it fits in the NSIS framework. I think it is worth mentioning,
though, and this update would just be all right.

Best regards,
Michael