Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re: Is QoS Dead?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:55:36 EST

In a message dated 11/21/2002 11:23:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> If you're using "end-to-end" in the IETF sense of "between the application
> layers at the endpoints" then we're in complete agreement.
> 
What is ultimately important to the user is end-to-end quality where, for 
voice, would be from one person's mouth to the other's ear. Of course, the 
IETF is not responsible for quite that entire path. So I suppose I meant from 
the user's device to the other device. In this sense, the "application" would 
be the stuff in the user's device that handles the telephony functions, e.g., 
turns bits in packets into sound and vice versa.

Mike Pierce

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:57:41 -0800 (PST)

> turns bits in packets into sound and vice versa.

The IETF does take responsibility for the vast majority of that path, it's
just different parts of the IETF, and categorizing the problem so that we
can route it to the correct part of the IETF to deal with it is an
important first step.  The end-to-end (application, layer 7) portion of
the IETF is where the SIP and SIPPING working groups reside, and it's my
contention that we get the greatest benefit if we work on these issues
within SIPPING, where other similar work is being done,a nd where people
have a lot of experience with voice.  IP routing, on the other hand, is
dealt with in the routing area, under Bill and Alex, where you wouldn't
get the time of day, and nobody cares about voice, since that's way down
deep inside packets, and they have, um, a not-inconsiderable disdain for
"payload" like voice or porn or chat or whatever.

                                -Bill

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:55:44 -0500

On Thursday, Nov 21, 2002, at 13:55 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> What is ultimately important to the user is end-to-end quality where, 
> for voice, would be from one person's mouth to the other's ear. Of 
> course, the IETF is not responsible for quite that entire path. So I 
> suppose I meant from the user's device to the other device. In this 
> sense, the "application" would be the stuff in the user's device that 
> handles the telephony functions, e.g., turns bits in packets into 
> sound and vice versa.

In some cases, it would be an IETF issue.  In a lot of cases, this 
stuff is not
strictly within the IETF's writ.  An example of the latter is the CoS 
queueing
that Sprint described is something that might well be very useful, but 
is outside
the scope of IETF specifications for routers.

The low hanging fruit would likely be the stuff similar to what Sprint 
is using
-- and deploying that would seem largely a business/contractual matter 
with the
folks who control the relevant access links.

Ran