Subject: RE: [Ieprep] identification of packets

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:15:57 -0500

On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 16:37 America/Montreal, Gunn, Janet wrote:
> Is there a consistent way to identify emergency traffic across several
> different "entities that are addressing congestion on the access 
> links"?
> Does this have to be worked out on an entity-by-entity basis, or is 
> there
> the possibility of a "standard" (de facto or officially sanctioned) 
> way of
> marking such traffic?

Ran wrote:
>I think that it needs to be worked out on an entity-by-entity basis,
>not because of lack of "standards", but because a lot of entities
>aren't (today) willing to offer inter-domain QoS as a service at any 
>price. And in an IETF context, feature deployment is a local policy 
>matter for the network operator, not something that IETF would ever try 
>to dictate.

I think Janet's question is excellent.  While it is true that "entities that
are addressing congestion on the access link" may use different methods,
this doesn't stop the hope that in many cases a common configuration of
*user software* is possible.  It doesn't have to imply interprovider QoS
either.

Nor does it have to be IETF "dictates", why not simply a BCP telling of this
common configuration.  (A common configuration would allow the same user
software to be used on a variety of networks, should default to best effort
if special stuff is not supported, and provide for enhanced interoperability
among emergency workers all using this common configuration.)  But these
types of ideas need to be made concrete.  Best practices for codecs may fall
into this category. Rohan had a creative idea that he posted last week.  His
idea falls into this category too.

Kimberly

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:38:29 -0500

On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 18:15 America/Montreal, King, Kimberly S. 
wrote:
> I think Janet's question is excellent.

Agreed.

> While it is true that "entities that

Hmm.

What do you mean by "common configuration of user software" ?

One interpretation could be "common CLI syntax".  The IESG recently
chose not to charter an XML Configuration WG that might have worked
on common syntax, but for now the syntax for configuring OSPF (or
anything else) varies significantly from one vendor to another.  So
I'm thinking you mean something different maybe.

> idea falls into this category too.

Please try to restate the above paragraph.  I'm sure I am not following
the intended meaning of the above paragraph.

Ran
[email-masked]