Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] draft-silverman-tsvwg-mlefphb-01

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:48:14 EST

To all,

I believe it is very important to discuss MLEF in order to move it forward in 
some way. While it would clearly be better to get WG consensus to forward it 
for approval (probably as an Experimental), the authors could also progress it 
as an individual submission to the RFC editor. In the latter case, the 
authors would want to first resolve whatever concerns are raised by participants in 
the group.

Since Jon mentioned the previous draft-baker-tsvwg-mlef-concerns, I need to 
say that the authors feel they have properly addressed the specific 
MLEF-related issues raised, especially by making it clear that MLEF is not a stand-alone 
solution and must work in conjunction with other mechanisms such as Call 
(Session) Admission Control.

It is important that disucssion be held on the specifics described in MLEF 
with a clear understanding that it is not intended to be a service description 
for the "Assured Service" defined in draft-pierce-tsvwg-assured-service-req. 
That is, it only addresses one of the "preferential treatment" mechanisms which, 
together with other mechanisms already defined or to be defined, is expected 
to yield the overall "assured service" capabilities which are required by 
certain organizations. I am primarily interested in its potential use within the 
US Defense Department Network. I believe Chris Eagan described very well the 
need we have for this capability.

Mike Pierce
Artel

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