Subject: RE: [NSIS] Message summarisation ("summary refreshes")

From: "Geib, Ruediger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:25:06 +0200

Hi Robert,

as I've raised the issue of missing consensus on the layer split
in my mail referring to the qos-nslp draft, I must object. 

Drafts on  NTLP and NSLP now have WG status. To progress them, 
consensus must be reached on the layer split (soon in my eyes). 
Maybe author teams of both should meet or there should be an 
expert team producing a proposal. 

I agree with you that it isn't a task of a framework 
document to define this split in detail.

I'd be interested in John's view on how/when to solve 
the layer split issue.

Regards, Rüdiger

|my feeling is that we should not mandate specific functionality
|in the NTLP to do this at this stage, or impose a specific 
|function split or inter-layer dependency in the framework. 
|views?
|
|robert h.

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

---

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:45:48 +0100

hi all,

i may have missed something here, my (fairly consistent) view
is that the f/w should *propose* a layer split as much is
possible to work out in a protocol vacuum. how successful we
have been depends on the area of functionality we are talking
about, for example:
*) for fragmentation, we had a long argument which i think
led to some agreed text.
*) for reliability/congestion control we have had a number 
of very long arguments for which I have proposed some conclusions
(which no one has objected to and which i intend to use for
the issue in f/w-04);
*) for this summary refresh issue we have had some short 
arguments for which I propose the conclusion 'it doesn't matter';
*) for the intermediate node problem we have identified the 
issue (at last) and will just explain the problem. there is no
easy solution so far as I can tell.
[please send objections to any of the above assertions, or
raise them as issues when -04 comes out.]

it's clear that the f/w can't *define* the layer split, since
that's an issue for standards track documents. i don't believe
it's possible to do it formally without completing the NTLP
design (and should be done in conjunction with NSLP designs
going on in parallel). in other words, a formal definition of
the layer split in its own right will come nearer the end of
the work than the beginning. in the meantime, the f/w provides
guidance, within which the designers of the different protocols
can fine tune the divisions.

i see this as the application of 'rough consensus and running code'
(in the context of the design of a family of protocols rather than
just a single one).

cheers,

r.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 07:33
> To: [email-masked]; Hancock, Robert
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] Message summarisation ("summary refreshes")
> 
> 
> Hi Rüdiger, Robert;
> 
> Currently, there is no WG NTLP draft yet, so it is hard to 
> say anything about it.  Hopefully Henning/Robert have a
> draft nearly ready for submission.  As the QoS NSLP draft
> has been published, and the NAT/FW NSLP draft should be
> ready shortly (I hope), it seems reasonable to try to target
> discussion in Minneapolis to resolve this issue.  Discussions
> in the framework doc did not produce consensus, so I think
> that framework doc should list issues related to the layer
> split, which should be, then, resolved in the version 01 drafts
> of the NTLP/NSLP protocol(s).
> 
> Does this sound reasonable?
> 
> John
> 
>  
> > Regards, Rüdiger
> >