Subject: RE: Definition of QI was: Re: [NSIS] WG requirements draft

From: "Vlora Rexhepi (ELN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:54:53 +0100

Hi Alban, Roland, Rudiger and All,

I see that there are differences in interpretation of the model
as soon as one starts thinking of scenarios other than centralized
resource management, which is what I tried to bring up on the list. 
And hope this shows my point that there is a problem with the [NSIS]
WG draft model once one is thinking of applying it to typical scenarios.
Personally I think that in centralized resource management scenarios
the [NSIS] WG draft model fits really well and I certainly am not
against centralised resource management scenarios. I just believe 
that it is not a feasible solution in particular scenarios such 
as e.g. access networks with high transmission costs.
Further, the real problem is that in the [NSIS] WG draft the 
requirements are dependent on this model and its entities, i.e.
QoS Initiator and QoS Controller. I believe this is not right. I 
would rather prefer to define the requirements based on typical 
scenarios and without relating them to a model nor to a resource
management scheme.

I liked Danny's proposal:
"
- Another possibility is to try to identify the basic scenarios, to
recognise that there are possibly different Qos interfaces (with
different requirements). For example, i clearly see a difference between
access QoS and core QoS (interface host - edge and edge -core). In the
core, we could, as you suggest, identify two approaches (centralised
/distributed) and try to see how then can interwork."

And I definitely agree with Georgios.

Regards,
Vlora

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

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:00:20 +0100

Hi Vlora,

> scenarios and without relating them to a model nor to a resource

Requirements based on "typical" scenarios will be fine, but I don't
think it's possible without any sort of (interaction) model. In your
mentioned scenarios some entities are communicating with each other. So
between any two such entities we have some kind of "interface" and
therefore the requirement for a protocol definition for communication
over that interface. But IMHO we always have to name the entities and we
have to know their basic functions. Thus, any scenario is just a concrete
example of such an interaction scenario, isn't it?

> And I definitely agree with Georgios.

Regards,
 Roland

-- 
Roland Bless -- e-Mail: [email-masked]
Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany  
Zirkel 2, D-76128 Karlsruhe -- Office: Bld. 20.20, 3rd floor, R 358
Phone: +49 721 608-6413 Fax: +49 721 388097