Subject: new version of TE framework draft (fwd)

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:56:52 -0600 (MDT)

Everyone, please use the new mailing list, thanks.

Jim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:15:56 -0800
From: xiaoxipe <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
     [email-masked], [email-masked],
     xiaoxipe <[email-masked]>
Subject: new version of TE framework draft

A new version of the TE framework draft "draft-ietf-tewg-framework-03.txt"
is attached.  We've addressed the issues raised on the mailing list during
the last call.  A text file describing all the changes made is also attached.

In summary, we didn't see any significant issues during the previous last
call. Therefore, there is no change of technical substance in this new version.
Some re-wording is done in section 6: the original "requirements" are now
re-worded as "recommendations".

Comments are welcome.  We would like to request that the WG issue a
last call on it shortly.

Xi-Peng

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 20:27:31 -0600 (MDT)

Please take a chance to review our current framework document.  Like
Like planning a wedding, the longer framework drafts take, the larger they
are likely to become.  So please take some time to review our current
framework document (draft-ietf-tewg-framework-03.txt), I suspect a WG last
call will be made shortly.

Here's my comments:
- it's big.
- timescale of picoseconds? (nit)

then what I'll call riders: restoration, mp-lambda-s, diffserv, webserv.

I don't think these should drift into the details.  Sections 6.5.2-3 don't
so bad, they are long (maybe I just have no attention span).

6.6 - what's this?  Web servers, and the need to tie in application load
splitting into the planning / provisioning cycles?  Maybe just strike
this?

6.7 (Diffserv TE) is way too far into the details, besides perhaps a bit
biased to one approach, to wit:

 "In order to provide enhanced quality of service in a Diffserv domain,
   it is not enough to implement proper buffer management and scheduling
   mechanisms. In addition to buffer management and scheduling"

maybe it is?  Is this a universal truth, is there a reference, is there no
dissenting view in the community?  Can another look be made at 6.7 in
light that this is in a framework document?

regards,

Jim

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:36:49 +0200

Jim and all,

>light that this is in a framework document?

I agree with Jim that the above statement is too strong.

My personal take is that:
        - it is sufficient in many enviroments
        - it is not sufficient in some specific environments

so my suggestion would be along the lines of : 
"While in some Diff-Serv environments, implementing proper buffer management
and scheduling
mechanisms will be sufficient to provide enhanced quality of service, there
are
other environments where complementary mechanisms may be required. In these
latter environments, in addition to buffer management and scheduling
mechanisms, it may be desirable to control  .... "

Cheers

Francois

>> Comments are welcome.  We would like to request that the WG issue a
PLEASE NOTE NEW CONTACT DETAILS - See below

_________________________________________________________________
Francois Le Faucheur   
Development Engineer, IOS Layer 3 Services 
Cisco Systems 
Office Phone:          +33 4 97 23 26 19
Mobile :               +33 6 89 108 159
Fax:                   +33 4 97 23 26 26
Email:                  [email-masked]
_________________________________________________________________
Cisco Systems Europe
Domaine Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Bâtiment T3
06 410   BIOT 
SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS
FRANCE
_________________________________________________________________