Subject: RE: [NSIS] WG requirements draft

From: "Vlora Rexhepi (ELN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:36:24 +0100

Hi Robert,

|*) You would like more scenarios. Me too. People have to provide them.
I would very much like to have some typical scenarios/use cases. 
These are missing from the current draft.

|*) To be most useful, I believe that these scenarios need to 
|be described with some common core terminology to describe the 
|entities taking part in NSIS related signalling. Otherwise, it 
|will be hard to tell from a plain text description what aspect 
|of the scenario is part of the problem we are trying to solve, 
|and what is not.
I think that we should relate the requirements to network entities
(e.g. host, border node, proxies,etc) and not use abstract concepts
to do so.

|*) Having said which, I really fail to see how the act of 
|giving the names 'QoS initiator' and 'QoS controller' to these 
|entities leads to "a very complex system which would 
|deteriorate severely the scalability and performance of the 
|protocol" as you put it.
Well it is not about the names it is about the functionality of
these entities when applied into every node. Just to recall here
the definition of these two entities as given in the draft:
"
   QoS Initiator: this is responsible for generating the QSCs for
   traffic flow(s) based on user or application requirements and
   signaling them to the network as well as invoking local QoS
   provisioning mechanisms.  This can be located in the end system, but
   may reside elsewhere in network.

   QoS Controller: this is responsible for interpreting the signaling
   carrying the user QoS parameters, optionally inserting/modifying the
   parameters according to local network QoS management policy, and
   invoking local QoS provisioning mechanisms.
"
If you would want this functionality in every node on the 
communication path it will be a very complex system that will not
scale and that will perform poorly.

Regards,
Vlora

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

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:22:21 +0100

--On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:36 AM +0100 "Vlora Rexhepi (ELN)" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>| *) You would like more scenarios. Me too. People have to provide them.

Me too so far we some kind of IP telephony use case in discussion, if the 
WG agrees we will added it in the next version (currently it needs some 
more discussions.

>| *) Having said which, I really fail to see how the act of
>| giving the names 'QoS initiator' and 'QoS controller' to these
>| entities leads to "a very complex system which would
>| deteriorate severely the scalability and performance of the
>| protocol" as you put it.

As said before in RSVP you have this exactly on each node.

If you regard the case of having a QoS signalling entity on each node we 
can discuss this.

Marcus

> Vlora

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus