Subject: [Ieprep] Re: Is QoS Dead?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:35:16 EST

In a message dated 11/15/2002 3:08:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

>       On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>     > Am I understanding you to say that all attempts to improve the QoS of 
> IP is
>     > dead?  I'm confused.
> 
> You're confused because you're having trouble with language again.
> Specifically, you're making the same mistake that we've corrected twice
> before: you're conflating the word "quality" with the acronym "QoS".  The
> former is generally thought to mean a property of goodness, while the
> latter is an abbreviation of "Quality of Service," which is a proper noun
> denoting a collection of protocols and practices which have the intention
> of making some pigs more equal than others.
> 
> So, to clarify again:  In the Internet, we improved the quality of
> service by abolishing QoS.
> 
> See?  A tip: you can distinguish proper nouns because they're denoted by
> the use of _initial capitals_.  Boeing, Big Mac with Cheese, QoS, Mike;
> these are all proper nouns, tokens which designate a thing, rather than
> being parts of the language which carry intrinsic meaning.
> 
> Before you get carried away, though, remember that decapitalizing
> something isn't a useful trick, since it _changes the meaning of the thing
> drastically_, as in the case before us now.  The confusion which this
> engenders in proles is why, for instance, the word acme has been so
> frequently used in the names (which are proper nouns) of businesses.
> 

[MAP] Really, Bill, I for one, and I believe a large number on this list (if 
there are many left), are getting sick and tired of your sarcasm (or is it 
your attempt at humor, and I'm missing it?). We would rather see an honest 
attempt to address the issues.

I am well aware that there is different terminolgy used in different places. 
Unlike you, I don't claim that one group's terminology is right and the 
other's is wrong and should be ignored, and I am making a serious attempt to 
bridge the difference between the two backgrounds. The IETF can use "QoS" to 
mean "the collection of protocols and practices..." if it wants. Personnally, 
that doesn't seem like good use of English to me, and I suspect that this 
meaning is not universally used in the IETF either (see below).

On the other hand, there are other recognized, competent standards bodies in 
the world who use "QoS" differently. For example, the American National 
Standard T1.523, Telecom Glossary, defines Quality of Service (QOS)  as "1. 
The performance specification of a communications channel or system. 2. A 
subjective rating of telephone communications quality..."

I can show you numerous references in ITU-T Recommendations to the use of 
"Quality of Service" and "QoS" to refer to the performance requirements and 
parameters, not to the protocol or procedures used to achieve that 
performance. G.1000 (and several others) define "Quality of Service" as "The 
collective effect of service performances, which determines the degree of 
satisfaction of a user of the service". (Not the best definition, in my 
opinion, but clearly not talking about the protocol.)

TIPHON document TR 101 329, General Aspects of Quality of Service, uses the 
term in the same way as ITU-T.

And I can cite others.

Please save your typing - I already know what your opinion is of other groups 
such as T1 and ITU-T, so you don't need to elaborate.

Concerning the use of "QoS" in the IETF, I agree that it seems to be often 
used as you indicated. Can you point to an actual definition in an RFC of 
"QoS" that I could use as a reference? I note that RFC 2216 contains the 
following definition:

"Quality of Service - In the context of this document, quality of service 
refers to the nature of the packet delivery service provided, as described by 
paramaters such as achieved bandwidth, packet delay, and packet loss rates." 
It then goes on to talk about "control of QoS parameters". I'm sure that I 
could find other RFCs that use "QoS" in this way, i.e., the same way that 
ITU-T and T1 and others use the term.

The bottom line is that none of us should be using a multi-defined term like 
"QoS" without carefully identifying the context, which is why I included the 
words "attempts to improve" in the above. If this isn't sufficient to clearly 
indicate my meaning, please tell me, but don't tell me I am "having trouble 
with langauge again."

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:32:08 -0500

On Saturday, Nov 16, 2002, at 22:35 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> On the other hand, there are other recognized, competent standards 
> bodies in the world who use "QoS" differently. For example, the 
> American National Standard T1.523, Telecom Glossary, defines Quality 
> of Service (QOS)  as "1. The performance specification of a 
> communications channel or system. 2. A subjective rating of telephone 
> communications quality..."

IETF aggressively questions the competence of ITU and ANSI on the topic 
of the Internet,
and quite regularly does so.

If one wants to play in an IETF forum, one needs to follow IETF 
terminology.
Fair play, if one wants to play over in ITU, then one needs to use 
their terminology
while over there.

> I can show you numerous references in ITU-T Recommendations

All of which are irrelevant, because this is IETF, not ITU.

> TIPHON document TR 101 329, General Aspects of Quality of Service, 
> uses the term in the same way as ITU-T.

And those are equally irrelevant, because this is IETF, not ETSI.

If folks here would use clear language, the list would be more 
successful
in communicating with each other.  "QoS" refers to a mechanism.  
"Service
Quality" refers to whether the provided service is good, bad, or 
sideways.

Ran

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