Subject: [NSIS] Request for timeslot draft-bos-mmusic-sdpqos-framework-00

From: Leroy Suresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:32:05 +0100

Hello John,

A few weeks ago we submitted to MMUSIC WG IETF #52 a new draft
(draft-bos-mmusic-sdpqos-framework-00) that describes a framework for
end-to-end QoS negotiation, proposing also extensions to SDP. Yesterday
we got a reply from the chair that MMUSIC doesn't want to extend the
current SDP protocol - all extensions are shifted to SDPng. Therefore we
didn't get a timeslot to present the draft to the MMUSIC group.

Real work on SDPng still has to start and will take a long time. There
is however a need NOW in current networks for mechanisms for end-to-end
QoS signalling. As the NSIS group already starts discussing QoS
extensions to signalling protocols right now, we feel that our draft
could serve as a valuable input and speed up the work in this domain.

Although we know it is quite late, we would like to request a timeslot
to present our draft to NSIS WG at IETF #52. 

Regards,
	Suresh

The draft can be retrieved at:
http://www.dmn.tzi.org/ietf/mmusic/52/id/

Abstract of the Framework draft:

This document describes a framework to negotiate end-to-end the
"Quality" of a multimedia session "as the end-user wants to perceive
it". This UPQoS (User Perceived QoS) negotiation is achieved at session
signaling level using two types of new SDP extensions, which this
document proposes to specify. All session control elements - user agents
as well as proxies - involved in the multimedia session setup may
participate to the UPQoS negotiation.   
                   
Secondly this document proposes to specify SDP extensions which allow to
express the UPQoS level per medium stream during the UPQoS negotiation.
The first type of SDP extensions characterizes the traffic type of the
bearer associated with the medium stream. The second
tolerance/sensitivity level of the service requested by the end-user
with respect to the QoS information carried in the first type of SDP
extensions. 

It is important to note that this draft only proposes to specify some
SDP extensions. The draft does not propose any modifications to existing
session signalling protocols (e.g. SIP protocol). It reuses the current
SIP procedures for the session description negotiation. Secondly the
draft does not propose any changes to existing bearer setup mechanisms
(e.g. RSVP, Diffserv, MPLS) either. The concepts proposed in the draft
are simply complementary to existing bearer setup specifications.

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:54:58 -0500

>could serve as a valuable input and speed up the work in this domain.

Perhaps off-topic for this list, but I note that SDPng is now at -03 and
has been under development for over a year now. SDP is not well suited
to these sorts of signalling, which is the reason for SDPng development.

Colin