Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:33:38 EST

In a message dated 11/13/2002 3:48:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> QoS was a fad for about eighteen months, several years ago.  It was
> excruciatingly painful, had exactly the opposite effect that its
> protagonists predicted, and wasted a huge amount of everyone's effort.
> Thankfully, it's well behind us, and we have a functional network again.
> Except that you're attempting to bring it back to life, and staggering
> around under the weight of its decaying corpse, flapping its arms and
> crowing "It MUST live again!"
> 

And there have been clear comments from others who do not believe that "QoS 
is well behind us". (I presume you mean "attempts to improve QoS".) There are 
clearly others who think that efforts still need to be made to provide better 
QoS than that available from the mis-named "best effort". (See AN's e-mail of 
today.)

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:36:38 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > is well behind us".

Right, they're saying "it's the future, all over again!" while holding
their noses and pretending it doesn't smell, well, a little past its
best-served-by date.

    > (I presume you mean "attempts to improve QoS".)

No, I mean that many of us implemented the regime of practices and
protocols referred to as QoS on our networks.  This did not
improve lower-case-q quality; quite the opposite.

    > There are clearly others who think that efforts still need to be
    > made to provide better QoS

Do you mean "There are clearly others who think that efforts need to be
made again to provide QoS" or "There are clearly others who think that
efforts still need to be made to provide better quality?"  These are, of
course, both true, and in opposition.

                                -Bill

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

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Nov 2002 14:09:14 -0800

You're confusing:

QoS -- experienced quality of service which can be measured by
parameters such as jitter, latency, determinism and throughput.

and

QoS control -- which is a means to optimizing one of the QoS terms ...
inevitably at the expense of at least one of the others.

---

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 13:33, [email-masked] wrote:

<snip>

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:29:36 -0500

On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 16:33 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> And there have been clear comments from others who do not believe that 
> "QoS is well behind us".

Which person who is actively engineering or operating a commercial ISP
has said anything like that on this list ?  I must not have received 
that email.

There have been no comments from folks with no experience or 
involvement with
operating a commercial ISP (or the DoD production IP networks, for that 
matter)
suggesting that QoS is not well behind us.  And a number of us didn't go
there even when it was the fad.

Ran