Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-pierce-sipping-assured-aervice-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:51:56 EST

In a message dated 1/3/02 6:48:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> hello,
>  
>  because of a back log of stuff to cover at the Sipping meeting in SLC,
>  I didn't have a chance to voice a concern about this draft.
>  
>  I was in agreement with the rest of the crowd that there is a place/need
>  for a requirements draft for MLPP.  however, my feeling is that a 
>  significant amount (%50?) of the draft as it stands should be taken out 
>  if the draft is to be advanced as an official work item of the Sipping
>  group. 
>  
>  Discussion on RSVP, Int-Serv, MPLS, etc. seems to be out of context in
>  this draft for this group.  And Annex A, which suggests a specific 
>  solution and mapping in relation to diff-serv code points, seems to be 
>  out of scope of a requirements draft.

I agree that Annex A would not be in the final requirements. At this point, 
it is only to help understand the point of relying of DiffServ to provide a 
part of the requirement. Regarding your comment on the discussion of RSVP, 
etc - this is the problem. While SIPPING is only for consideration of 
possible changes to the SIP protocol, this draft is attempting to define the 
full range of requirements for Assured Service, whether they will be provided 
by SIP protocol or other techniques. In order to address the full issue, it 
mentions how some of the requirements can be met without changes to SIP. The 
intention is to go no further than mentioning RSVP, DiffSer v, etc.
>  
>  Also, I'm not sure if section 6 (Possible Approaches) should be a part
>  of a Requirements draft (maybe the chairs can provide some direction
>  on this issue).

Correct, possible approaches would not be part of the requirements. At this 
point it is only to initiate discussion concerning where the solutions could 
come from. Hopefully, this material in the draft gets some specific responses 
on whether these are the right approaches or if there are better ones.
>  
>  In areas of the draft that focus just on MLPP, it may be more appropriate
>  to remove references to US DoD.  MLPP is a T1 spec which happens to be 
>  used by the US DoD (as well as NATO, and I assume other organizations).
>  Listing these organizations is fine as a point of reference, but it seems
>  too constraining to just focus on one -- eg, the reference to the US DoD
>  should be taken out of the Abstract.

Certainly, the intention is not to make much of the specific use of MLPP by 
the DoD (and other countries which may do it the same). I agree that it 
shouldn't be in the abstract or intro. It should only be mentioned in the 
text as an example.
>  
>  I think some of the above was touched on in the meeting, but it didn't 
>  seem a clear direction was given to the authors.  my assumption is that
>  the authors will coordinate their efforts with Polk's work so that there
>  are not two divergent efforts with different expectations of the other.
>  
>  thoughts?,
>  
>  -ken
>  

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP