Subject: WG Last call passwd: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt

From: Ed Kern <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:39:27 -0400

There was some discussion on this draft during the close of the working
group last call.  The chairs have discussed the changes and believe that
the document can be revised with minimal changes to section 3.3.  The
editors of the document now must incorporate the minimal changes into
another version of the draft.  After that, it will be forwarded on to the
IESG.

This WG document addresses a WG milestone.  It is proposed as an
Informational RFC.

Ed & Jim

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:27:32 +0200

Ed & Jim,

10/06/2002 -0400, Ed Kern wrote:

>another version of the draft.

We'll close on the final wording through the alias and then issue the next 
version asap.
Thanks
Francois

>   After that, it will be forwarded on to the
>IESG.
>

---

From: Ed Kern <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:22:49 -0400

great francois

we look forward to reading it..

Ed

--On Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:27 AM +0200 Francois Le Faucheur 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> We'll close on the final wording through the alias and then issue the
> next version asap. Thanks
> Francois
>

---

From: Nabil Seddigh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:04:18 -0400

While this is late, I thought I should at least mention one 
observation re: section 2. The draft states:  "The solution 
must satisfy all the application scenarios described in 
section 2..."

After going through section 2 of the draft more carefully
it appears to me that the 3 scenarios are redundant in terms
of demonstrating that a particular solution satisfies 3
different application requirements. Scenarios 3 deals with 
3 classes, Scenario 2 deals with 2 classes and Scenario
1 deals with 2 classes. 

My suggestion would be to keep scenario 3 and get rid of
the 1st 2 scenarios as they result in redundant text.

Best,
Nabil Seddigh

---

From: Nabil Seddigh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:04:18 -0400

Best,
Nabil Seddigh

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:27:32 +0200

Ed & Jim,

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:32:42 +0200

Nabil,

>3 classes, Scenario 2 deals with 2 classes and Scenario

For memory, the point of the "Application Scenario" section is to answer a 
question that came up many times initially which was "what exactly are the 
SPs trying to do with the new thing and why cannot they do it today with 
existing TE".
I think the three scenarios show three different objectives/applications ( 
Limiting Proportion of Classes on a Link, Maintain relative proportion of 
traffic classes ,Guaranteed Bandwidth Services) and answer the question well.

The fact that despite different goals they exhibit the same fundamental 
requirement (ie enforce different bandwidth constraint) was also deliberate 
to give the reader a feel for the essential DSTE technical requirements 
before they are detailed in the next section.

I think section 2 is just fine as it is.

Francois

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:27:32 +0200

Ed & Jim,

---

From: Ed Kern <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:22:49 -0400

great francois

Ed