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

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:12:11 +0300

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

---

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:10:24 -0400

Hi, Hannes and all:
 
In addition, it is a simple soul-searching question for the entire NSIS WG
and all IETF members in general as follows:

*	

	What does it make a mandatory justification that there MUST be TWO
different RFCs for extensions of QSPEC parameters (a. QSPEC Template and b.
Y.1541-QSPEC) for the SAME Y.1541 QoS model?

*	

	Why does the QSPEC Template draft need to address extensions of
specific QoS models like Y.1541 that is going to be an informational RFC?
*	

	Why does there need to be ANOTHER Y.1541-QoS draft to address the
additional extensions of QSPEC parameters for the same Y.1541 QoS model that
is also going be an Informational RFC as it is its WGLC stage?

Can anyone help to justify the above requirements? 

If anyone cannot justify the above requirements, does it not simply prove
the fact that these TWO separate drafts can NOT be recommended to assign
RFCs as it is if those technical inconsistencies are NOT removed?

Best regards,

Radhika

  _____  

From: Roy, Radhika R. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 4/10/2006 9:39 AM
To: [email-masked]; Roy, Radhika R.
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [NSIS] WGLC on RMD & Y.1541

Hannes:

Probably, we have missed the finer technical arguments due to lack of
specific references of the QSPEC draft. Let me provide the sections of the
draft that I am talking about as follows:

7.2.6.1 <PHB Class> Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

7.2.6.2 <Y.1541 QoS Class> Parameter  . . . . . . . . 29

7.2.6.3 <DSTE Class Type> Parameter . . . . . . . . . 30

These above sections deal with "use cases" of QSPEC parameters for different
"specific" QoS models that are implementation-specifics, and do NOT belong
to the "generic" QSPEC draft.

For example, Y.1541 QoS classes depend on some "specific values" of delay,
jitter, or packet loss. If any values of any parameters are changed, it will
NOT be called as Y.1541 QoS model. More over, the extensions shown here are
NOT complete in all respects. The other Y.1541-draft shows how many other
things need to be dealt with respect QOSEC for implementations of Y.1541 QoS
model.

So, the suggestions are as follows:

1.      Remove the use cases of QoS models from this "generic" QSPEC draft.
That is, remove Sections 7.2.6.1 - 7.2.6.3 from this draft.

2.      Make Section 7.2.6 a generic one by explaining the fact that "there
are many QoS models that may use this generic QSPEC template for "specific"
implementations of different QoS models in the context of the public
Internet, Enterprise networks, or other networks.

3.      In the same token, the Y.1541-QSPEC draft should be a stand-alone
draft that will deal with implementations of the Y.1541 QoS model extending
all QSPEC parameters.

4.      Similarly, we can write separate drafts for DSTE and DiffServ
network for implementations of those QoS models extending the QSPEC
parameters for specific purposes.

More inline [RRR].

I really appreciate your help for technical clarifications.

Best regards,

Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:11 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R.
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NSIS] WGLC on RMD & Y.1541

Hi Roy,

please find some comments below:

Roy, Radhika R. wrote:

> 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.

By generic you mean: The QSPEC template draft defines parameters that 

can be reused by more than one QoSM. Right?

[RRR] More specifically - QSPEC must not deal with how to "extend" its
parameters for implementation of specific QoS models that depend on
"specific" values of delay, jitter, or packet loss. Kindly see the
explanations provided above.

> 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.

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.

[RRR] You are right, but it is one of the examples that you have provided
that I call that a specific QoS model that depends on "grouping" on some QoS
parameters.

[RRR] The interesting thing is this: 1) A specific QoS model can also be
defined "only" on "grouping" of the QoS parameters without defining any
specific values of any QoS parameters and 2) A specific QoS model may be
very tightly coupled by defining both "grouping" of parameters and the
specific value of each parameter of each group.

[RRR] Y.1541 QoS model depends on Category 2 as stated above.

> 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?

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.

[RRR] Kindly see that the general explanations that I have provided for
Sections 7.2.6.1 - 7.2.6.3 of the draft. These sections are NOT "generic."
They address specific extensions of QSPEC templates for specific QoS models.
These sections need to be removed and the generic texts to be used, and the
separate drafts need to be written for each QoS model extending QSPEC
templates.

> 3.    

>       The specific extensions of QSPEC parameters for Y.1541 and/or other

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

This is no separate argument.

> 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?

I don't get the point with this bullet.

[RRR] Kindly see that the general explanations that I have provided for
Sections 7.2.6.1 - 7.2.6.3 of the draft. These sections are NOT "generic."

> 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.

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>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-09.txt

[RRR] Kindly see that the general explanations that I have provided for
Sections 7.2.6.1 - 7.2.6.3 of the draft. These sections are NOT "generic."

> Best regards,

> Radhika

Ciao

Hannes

>   _____  

> 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 

>> 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 

> 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> >

---

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:11:27 -0400

Hannes:
 
Right.
 
If this is done already, we will have no issues as the QSPEC draft can be a
stand-alone "GENERIC" draft all by itself.
 
In the same token, Y.1541-QSPEC draft can also be a stand-alone draft all by
itself, and people will NOT be confused as it will contain all of its Y.1541
QoS model-specific intensions in one draft.
 
If those two drafts become completely separate, we will have no more
technical issues. All we need to do is to improve its texts especially for
the QSPEC Template draft to make it so generic that it will be a universal
template for all QoS signaling schemes that people are yet to imagine in the
future. In this case, I would even propose to make it (QOS Template draft) a
"standard-track RFC."
 
We appreciate your help in this regard.
 
Best regards,
Radhika

  _____  

From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 4/10/2006 5:42 PM
To: Roy, Radhika R.
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NSIS] WGLC on RMD & Y.1541

Hi Roy, 

to summarize what you say: The parameters used in Section 7.2.6.1 - 
Section 7.2.6.3 are QoSM specific and provide little value for reuse 
among other QoSM. Since the QSPEC draft aims to be a toolbox that 
provides attributes that can be reused by multiple QoSMs you suggest to 
delete these sections from the QSPEC draft and to deal with them in a 
separate document (which is, btw, partically done already). 

Ciao 
Hannes 

  Roy, Radhika R. wrote: 
> specific references of the QSPEC draft. Let me provide the sections of 
> the draft that I am talking about as follows: 
> 
>          
> 
> These above sections deal with "use cases" of QSPEC parameters for 
> different "specific" QoS models that are implementation-specifics, and 
> do NOT belong to the "generic" QSPEC draft. 
> 
> For example, Y.1541 QoS classes depend on some "specific values" of 
> delay, jitter, or packet loss. If any values of any parameters are 
> changed, it will NOT be called as Y.1541 QoS model. More over, the 
> extensions shown here are NOT complete in all respects. The other 
> Y.1541-draft shows how many other things need to be dealt with respect 
> QOSEC for implementations of Y.1541 QoS model. 
> 
> 1.      Remove the use cases of QoS models from this "generic" QSPEC 
> draft. That is, remove Sections 7.2.6.1 - 7.2.6.3 from this draft. 
> 
> 2.      Make Section 7.2.6 a generic one by explaining the fact that 
> "there are many QoS models that may use this generic QSPEC template for 
> "specific" implementations of different QoS models in the context of the 
> public Internet, Enterprise networks, or other networks. 
> 
> 3.      In the same token, the Y.1541-QSPEC draft should be a 
> stand-alone draft that will deal with implementations of the Y.1541 QoS 
> model extending all QSPEC parameters. 
> 
> [RRR] You are right, but it is one of the examples that you have 
> provided that I call that a specific QoS model that depends on 
> "grouping" on some QoS parameters. 
> 
>>  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? 
> 
> Sections 7.2.6.1 - 7.2.6.3 of the draft. These sections are NOT 
> "generic." They address specific extensions of QSPEC templates for 
> specific QoS models. These sections need to be removed and the generic 
> texts to be used, and the separate drafts need to be written for each 
> QoS model extending QSPEC templates. 
> 
>>  3.   
> 
>> 
> 

> 
>>  Hope that the above shows that there are enough technical reasons why 
> I have 
> 

> _http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-09.txt_
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-09.txt_>