Subject: Re: [NSIS] What is the goal of the analysis draft?

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:28:04 GMT

I find this discussion rather annoying and a waste of the WG's valuable
time.  It does not take rocket science to recognize the areas in which
RSVP did it right, and which account for its very widespread use (and
abuse!!!) for a variety of signaling applications, often entirely
outside its design domain.  Nor is it particularly hard to understand
that the RSVP framework is being used for applications for which it was
not particularly appropriate.  Vendor communities keep defining
marvelously complicated new RSVP objects which contain/conceal entirely
new signaling regimes.

There are currently 31 Internet Drafts with "rsvp" in the title, and
some contain material that would frighten children.  The result is that
RSVP is ALREADY a suite of signaling protocols, perhaps 10 of them!  In
short, we have a horrific protocol engineering mess on our hands, and
it gets worse weekly.

There is far too much micro-engineering is inventing 17 ways to do the
same thing, and RSVP is not a sufficient framework to bring some order
to this cahos.  The proper role for the NSIS has taken on the task of
straightening out this mess.

My first thought was that writing an analysis draft is a complete waste
of time.  The original base E2E signaling protocol for QoS with
multicasting is a dead issue; nothing is to be gained by writing
anything further about it (beyond RFC 2208).  However, describing in
some generality the ~10 different signaling protocols currently based
on RSVP (or RSVP-TE, etc.) might be useful for helping the NSIS group
to understand how to structure the space of ULSPs.  It will require
digging into design documents of the ATM Forum, 3GPP, the Optical
Interworking Forum, and the ITU, as well as the MPLS WG of the IETF.,
where RSVP "extensions" have been defined.

Bob Braden

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

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:09:00 -0800 (PST)

Bob,

Apologies for non-LotR geeks, tis the season.
Elves were perverted into Orcs by Morgoth; there
was very little the Elves could do about that.
Likewise, I really don't think there's much we can
do to stop people outside of IETF's purview from
taking IETF protocols and turning them into, well,
Orcs.

If there are legitimate problems with RSVP with
WG's outside and within IETF that can actually
articulate the general problem, then we should
hear it out and consider the general problem. This
is as much a WG management issue as a technical
issue as has been very evident with the SIP WG
experience.

So, I'm not entirely sure whether an endless
string of analysis papers is really what's needed
so much as:

1) Identifying Stovepiped Problems
2) Generalizing Them
3) Deriving Requirements

The question is what is the most expeditious route
to get to (3). The SIP experience says that it's
not easy when there are large culture clashes. I'm
all ears.

		Mike