Subject: [Ieprep] Reasoning behind agenda

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:19:56 -0700

Here are the documents that I see posted for discussion in Yokohama. I have 
asked for two slots, a total of 4 hours, and we'll see where that goes.

	draft-ietf-ieprep-security-00.txt
	draft-ietf-ieprep-requirements-00.txt
	draft-carlberg-ieprep-elastic-requirements-00.txt
	draft-ietf-ieprep-packet-marking-policy-00.txt
	draft-ietf-ieprep-reflexive-dscp-00.txt
	draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-02.txt

I'm not sure what the intersection of talauliker and baker's drafts are; 
from my perspective, it sounds like a submission to diffserv more than a 
submission to ieprep. We'll discuss it given time, and see what we want to 
do with it. I note that diffserv didn't choose to standardize the RIO 
mechanism, or Cisco's WRED mechanism, or Lucent's approach, or the approach 
recommended by Van and Kathy called RED-Lite, or any of a list of others. 
Diffserv rather chose to identify AQM mechanisms as a class of equally 
acceptable algorithms. I also note that there is little substantive 
difference between what this proposes and an AF service which treats all 
emergency traffic as AFn1 traffic.

	draft-talauliker-ieprep-diffserv-00.txt

This draft was discussed somewhat at the interim meeting, and on the 
list.  Scott, Allison, and I have been thinking about the approach, and 
Scott has a proposal for what he believes may be a better approach, 
embedding the policy lookup in the RSVP exchange. I believe that we will 
have a joint meeting with the SIP folks to sort this out.

	draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req-00.txt

This draft is not, strictly speaking, in our charter, but may represent a 
direction for further work in this area. We may discuss it if we have time.

	draft-ayyasamy-ieprep-isp-recommend-00.txt

There are also a few documents laying around that we discussed at the 
interim meeting, and have since been merged. They are not current.

By "discuss", I mean just that - I am expecting no presentations at this 
meeting per se, but rather for the document authors to lead a discussion of 
their draft looking for holes and general sign-off.

There is at least one document that didn't make the draft cutoff - Ian's 
contract terminology document. My sense is that this will be important 
enough to simply finish on the list or delay to the fall IETF meeting in 
Atlanta.

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

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:50:16 +0100

>	draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req-00.txt

will the draft be presented at the joint meeting, or not at all?  
I noticed that there wasn't an IEPREP time slot set aside for the 
draft.  or is the draft sort of dead on arrival given Scott's new
proposal?

-ken

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:59:02 -0700

>draft.  or is the draft sort of dead on arrival given Scott's new

I thought we had already more or less discussed it; we can certainly 
continue that discussion.