Subject: [Diffserv] terminology : phbg

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:06:06 +0100

candid question for my own clarification :
had AF not been defined as it is now in RFC 2597, would a set of PHBs as AFn1, AFn2, AFn3 be specified as a PHB group according to the definition in RFC2475?
if so, it would be neat to make this clear

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 10:47:37 -0800

You (and other newcomers to the list) might check the archive for
the recent discussion on this rather than rehashing on the list:
Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:01:12 -0500

> Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/
This is a somewhat unfair response.  Gerard was lurking on the list during 
these discussions;  we've had side discussions on this over the past several 
months.  It seems that he has read the discussions and the words in the draft, 
but does not understand what we're talking about.  

I don't know whether or not this is a cause for concern.  My implicit working 
assumption has been that the audience for our drafts and RFCs is grounded in 
the fundamentals of computer science (or at least the stuff they fed me as a 
WPI undergrad more years ago than I care to admit).  The notions of type and 
instance certainly were taught, probably first in a programming languages 
course, then later in one or more of the theory courses.  If in fact there is 
a significant part of our readership which has not been exposed to these 
concepts, then at a minimum we need to add some words somewhere.

Then again, maybe there's job security in keeping it as obscure as possible ;-)

> > if so, it would be neat to make this clear
AF is a type of PHB group.  AFn1 is an instance of the AF PHB group.