Subject: RE: [NSIS] WGLC on RMD & Y.1541

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:55:18 -0400

Hannes:
 
It is a good question to discuss in the mailing list. I appreciate your
question. Let me explain again as follows:

1.	

	QSPEC is a generic spec that can be used by any QoS models. So, this
draft must be a stand-alone draft without dealing with any "specific"
extensions of any "specific" QoS models.
2.	

	It can be seen that many "specific" QoS models like Y.1541 may come
in the future just by changing some values in parameters like delay, jitter,
loss, etc. That does not mean we have extend our "generic" QSPEC draft again
and again for those "specific" extensions. It is technically inconsistent to
"mix" a generic draft with extensions of some "specific" QoS models. Is this
clear?
3.	

	The specific extensions of QSPEC parameters for Y.1541 and/or other
QoS models in this generic draft is OUT-of-SCOPE.
4.	

	It is can be easily seen that there are many extensions of QSPEC
parameters are needed to have the complete implementation of Y.1541 QoS
models as these have been addressed specific to Y.1541-QSPEC draft that is
going through the WGLC. If this is so, why do we need to pollute the generic
QSPEC draft with some "incomplete" extensions of QSPEC parameters for a
"specific" Y.1451 QoS model? Why does this the "specific" QSPEC-Y.1541 draft
MUST not be, like generic QSPEC draft, a stand-alone draft by its own merit?

Hope that the above shows that there are enough technical reasons why I have
been providing comments for a long time. I would appreciate if you would
provide any good technical reason against all the comments that I have
provided above.

Best regards,

Radhika

  _____  

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Mon 4/10/2006 7:06 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R.
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NSIS] WGLC on RMD & Y.1541

Hi Roy, 

my impression over the last year was that you are not unbiased when it 
comes to Y.1541. This is a problem. 

Now, you want to see the Y.1541 content moved to a separate document (to 
the Y.1541 QoSM draft). 

Can you motivate your desire to move this particular text to another 
document? Why not other parts? 

Ciao 
Hannes 

Roy, Radhika R. wrote: 
> John: 
> 
> The comments that I have provided on this yesterday (in the context 
> of IETF # 65 meeting minutes) need to be addressed in the Y.1541 
> draft. 
> 
> Basically, this document needs to be a stand-alone document for 
> extensions of QSPEC parameters for Y.1541, and the main QSPEC draft 
> MUST be a generic draft without any specific extensions for any specs 
> like Y.1541, etc. 
> 
> If any help is needed to modify the document per above suggestion, 
> please let me know. I will volunteer to do so. 
> 
> Best regards, Radhika 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked] 
> Sent: Mon 4/10/2006 2:12 AM To: [email-masked] Subject: [NSIS] WGLC on 
> RMD & Y.1541 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> The WGLC ended on both the RMD and Y.1541 QoSM documents. A number of 
>  issues have been identified and were discussed at IETF 65. 
> Additionally, there were very few comments received on these 
> documents.  These documents cannot procede without review.  If you 
> have read the document and think that they are ready, then please let 
> us know. The authors are revising the documents, and after the 
> documents are resubmitted, we'll need another WGLC is needed befor 
> the documents are submitted to the IESG. 
> 
> thanks, John 
> 
> _______________________________________________ nsis mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>  
> <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ nsis mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>  

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

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:10:30 +0200

Hi Roy,

please find some comments below:

> extensions of any "specific" QoS models.

By generic you mean: The QSPEC template draft defines parameters that 
can be reused by more than one QoSM. Right?

> loss, etc.

You mean: In the future QoSM designers might use the QSPEC draft as a 
template to pick their favorite parameters (such as bandwidth, delay, 
etc.) and potentially have to define additional parameters to finalize 
their QoSM design.

> That does not mean we have extend our "generic" QSPEC draft again
Well, the parameters listed in the QSPEC template draft are taken from 
existing QoSMs and the assumption is that they are sufficiently generic 
so that they might be used by other QoSMs in the future as well.

> QoS models in this generic draft is OUT-of-SCOPE.

This is no separate argument.

> MUST not be, like generic QSPEC draft, a stand-alone draft by its own merit?
I don't get the point with this bullet.

> provide any good technical reason against all the comments that I have

Do you think that any of the classes listed in Section 7.2.6 are generic 
enough to be useful in the document?
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-09.txt

Ciao
Hannes