Subject: [Tsvwg] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-chan-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:51:10 +0100

Hi,

I'm not sure I understand the point of this draft. I recognize that
it's incomplete, but it's a trivial statement that if we send two
diffserv traffic aggregates on a wire, we have built what the draft
calls a treatment aggregate. Then it's a *requirement* of the diffserv
architecture that the sending router has met the constraints of both
PHBs corresponding to the two traffic aggregates. It's just a basic
part of the diffserv architecture that different traffic aggregates
on the same link share resources. How this is a achieved is an
implementation issue and a possible product differentiator. So I
don't see what there is to write an RFC about.

IMHO, it is *not* OK to abbreviate "treatment aggregate"
as "aggregate."  RFC 2475 uses "aggregate" alone once or twice to
refer to a traffic aggregate or behavior aggregate. We were very
careful in RFC 3086 to avoid this ambiguity, and so we spelled
out "traffic aggregate" or "behavior aggregate" every time.

Regards
      Brian

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