Subject: RE: RPH nits Re: [NSIS] QSPEC Comment: Mandatory AttributeList(UN CLASSIFIED)

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:12:15 -0400

John and James:

Please see comments inline [RRR].

As John pointed out that QSPEC is a generic one that defines the generic
structure/container, and QoS models (e.g., Y.1541, DSTE, RSVP, DiffServ)
define specific QoS deployments. 

Now the questions in front of the NSIS WG are as follows:

1. If this is the case why are there "some" QoS model-specific
extensions like Y.1541 and DSTE (Sections 7.2.6.2 and 7.2.6.3) included
in this QSPEC draft in the first place?

2. Why is there another draft - Y.1541 QoS model-specific extensions for
QSPEC that deals with how all Y.1541 parameters can be used in extending
QSPEC? Is it not more rational to make this Y.1451 draft as a SINGLE
"stand-alone" draft that deals with ONLY Y.1541 QoS-model specific
extensions of QSPEC?

3. Why can the present QPSEC draft be generic enough NOT to deal with
only QoS-model specific extensions? What is the rational that the NSIS
WG wants to deal with two drafts (a. one for QSPEC draft and b. another
one Y.1541 draft) to deal with Y.541 QoS-model specific extensions of
the "same" QSPEC parameters?

4. Why will the Chair (/members) not the appoint the EDITOR if the
present authors are NOT willing to do so as suggested above because the
WG Chair (/members) can "appoint" EDITOR to do so per charter of the
IETF?

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 9:29 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: RPH nits Re: [NSIS] QSPEC Comment: Mandatory
AttributeList(UNCLASSIFIED)

James,

>>The critical thing for the QSPEC is to have the structure/container 
>>that can hold the values and not the values themselves.
>
>This is an interesting idea.  Design the container and the 
>semantics, but leave the values for later assignment.

This is the general idea for the QoS NSLP - we can define the 
semantics, the QSPEC template defines the container and QoS models
define specific QoS deployments.

[RRR] Please the notes provided above what needs to be done with respect
to the present QSPEC draft and Y.1541 draft that are in the WGLC.

John

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