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

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:42:41 +0000

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.

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).

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.

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