[Diffserv] [IPTEL] RE: PROPOSED JOINT ACTIVITY ON A GENERIC PROTOCOL MECHANISM FOR END-TO-END QOS SERVICE CONTROL

Brian E Carpenter brian at HURSLEY.IBM.COM
Tue Jun 5 01:28:10 EDT 2001


1/ please stop copying all the lists. most of us are on all of them

2/ this is a layering question and is clearly indpenenant of mapping
qos at lower layers (if it isnt its severely broken) - its clear that
diffserve and issll sit several layeres BELOW what you want to do and
that the signaling mechanisms for both are indpeennsdat and much lower
- i notice for example you dont include 802.1p and q - similar layer
type stuff...

3/ the docs cited are telpeony specific EXTREMELY and in fact dont
relate to results that show that people have broader tolerances than
yo umight expect when using different ways to get voice around - while
its reasoanble to have a subset of QoS parameters signaled fro mapps
that are application specific, a better way to do it is through a
profiling mechanisms, which has a code point scheme, that then uses
more general means to signal the actual QoS parameters

4/ the IETF has several appropriate signaling protocol efforts
and paramerter specification schemes...although i believe its not well
architectured across all the layers right now and its not clear we
have a profile mechansism/language/syntax/semantics

5/ there's the siglite discussio ngoing on and there was the bof to
talk about new signaling protocols at the last IETF _ this seems to be
somewhat ignoring that activity - is that intentional? if so why?

j.

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



More information about the sg16-avd mailing list