PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL

[Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA]

Hi, Gary:

Yes, this is the idea as you have indicated. With respect to service classes
let me add as follows:

The service classes are nothing but composed of some attributes that have
the implications for a group of performance parameters.

1. Dynamic and Pre-defined Service Classes Grouping Performance Parameters
with no "values" of any Parameters

So, endusers will be able to signal any group of performance parameters
(that may imply a given service class) as they wish and the negotiation
capability will be provided to choose the common set of performance
parameters as they like to accept. This is called the creation of service
classes dynamically. (For example, class 1 = (delay, jitter, losses), class
2 = (delay, jitter), class 3 = (delay), etc.)

If needed, the flexibility can also be provided for a pre-defined service
classes as well.

2. Dynamic and Pre-defined Service Classes Grouping Performance Parameters
with specific "values" of all Parameters

In addition to item 1, the service classes can be further be created
dynamically or pre-defined assigning some specific value for each parameter
and then group them together. (For example, delay = 50 mSecs (Class 3/Gold),
delay = 100 (class 3 - silver), delay = 150 mSecs (class 3 - bronze), etc.)

We can keep so many flexibilities in defining service classes.

Best regards,
Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Thom [mailto:gthom at delta-info.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:24 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA; ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR
E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL


The application layer QOS should be an indication of the abstract quality
and priority requirements or capabilities. This should really be called
"Application Level Service Class" because it affects more than just the
transpost level QOS mechanisms. It also affects Gatekeeper and Gateway
behaviour.

This should be independent of the transport layer mechanisms.

The mapping of service class to transport level QOS and Gatekeeper and
Gateway behavior is an implementation issue or is subject to service level
agreements.

Gary

 --------------------------------------------
 Name   : Gary A. Thom
 Company: Delta Information Systems, Inc.
 Address: 300 Welsh Rd., Bldg 3
          Horsham, PA 19044 USA
 Phone  : +1-215-657-5270 x123
 Fax    : +1-215-657-5273
 E-mail : gthom at delta-info.com
 Website: www.delta-info.com
--------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing list for parties associated with ITU-T Study Group 16
[mailto:ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM]On Behalf Of Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:44 AM
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
Subject: Re: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR
E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL


Hi, Bob:

You are right that the application layer does not control the lower layers
(e.g., RTP, UDP, IP).

So, there is a requirement how the lower layers can be coupled for
implementation in cooperation with the higher layer. The fact of the matter
is that the lower layers are responsible for sending the media streams
between the source and destination path.

This is the area for implementations and we have to see how far the SG16 is
going to dig to address this problem because our works will be limited
mostly in the upper application layer.

AT&T contributions in the SG16 Brazil (May-June'01) meeting provide a
framework how to address this problem.

Any contributions along this line will be highly appreciated.

Best regards,
Radhika R. Roy
AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Callaghan, Robert [mailto:Robert.Callaghan at icn.siemens.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:24 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R, ALCTA; ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM
Subject: RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR
E ND-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL


Please note that the network layer QOS (e.g., RSVP, DiffServe, and/or MPLS)
may or may not have the end-to-end significance. For example, an IP network
may implement different QOS schemes in different domains (e.g., RVSP in one
domain, DiffServ in another domain).

However, the application layer QOS is end-to-end that remains the same. For
example, an H.323 or SIP call that can traverse several IP domains where
each domain may implement its own network layer QOS schemes while the
H.323/SIP call carry the signaling messages and QOS parameters end-to-end
independent of the underlying network layer QOS mechanisms.

Yes, the application layer is end-to-end.  But does it traverse the exact
same route as RTP transport layer?  I don't think so, in that this is not
IP.  IP routes each packet individually with the right to change routes
independently for each stream, and each packet in a stream.  This is the
basis for load balancing, overload control, and link failure survivability.

With this in mind, the application layer can negotiate an end-to-end QOS
with the ends.  It cannot control the intermediate routing nodes.  A method
is needed to accomplish the end-to-end QOS control via the RTP IP stream.

Bob

--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Callaghan
Siemens Enterprise Networks
5500 Broken Sound Blvd,      Boca Raton, Fl 33487
Tel: +1 561 923-1756            Fax: +1 561 923-1403
Email: Robert.Callaghan at ICN.Siemens.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
listserv at mailbag.intel.com