Subject: [bmwg] more comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:28:57 -0800

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]> 

Well, I took a quick look at draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-02.txt
since that appears to be the current draft.

Apart from Bob's comment, I am bit concerned that the authors are
slightly confused about diffserv. The text under "Issues" in 6.1.3
really misses the point - the way you look at resource management
in a diffserv domain is simply different from how you look at it
in a reserved-flow model. A BMWG draft for diffserv domains might
be a good idea, but that is a separate discussion.

Worse, the first paragraph of the Introduction

>    The IntServ over DiffServ framework [1] outlines a heterogeneous 
>    Quality of Service (QoS) architecture for multi domain Internet 
>    services. ...

greatly exagerrates the importance of RFC 2998, which is merely a way
of munging together diffserv-incapable hosts and diffserv domains. I don't 
see why this paragraph (which is essentially an opinion piece) is needed.
IMHO it should simply be deleted.

   Brian

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