Subject: RE: [Diffserv] QoSSIG BOF

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:28:50 +0100

>Summing up the QoSSIG game (before leaving some of the mailing lists) there
>are already two reasons to open a new forum
>
>1. discuss new protocols as extension, replacement or successor of RSVP 
>2. discuss adjusting the functionality and comlexity of RSVP
>
>Any other arguments for/against a BOF?!

Using RSVP, an end system basically asks whether certain QoS requirements
will be met. This is based on QoS parameters such as the bandwidth, delay, ...
We can move the determination to the end system and discuss simply making
this information available via SNMP, for example. This would be a discussion
about MIB rights, then.

I absolutely agree we need a BOF.
Here's another QoS signalling protocol:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-welzl-ptp-02.txt

This protocol is also discussed in:

Welzl, M.: "PTP: Better Feedback for Adaptive Distributed Multimedia
Applications on the Internet", IPCCC 2000 (accepted for publication)
http://www.tk.uni-linz.ac.at/~michael/publications/ipccc2000.ps

And yes, I agree that we could basically use a tweaked RSVP instead of
PTP; still, PTP has a mechanism (the compensation for single missing
routers) that can't be added to RSVP unless we remove the reservation
part    :)

Regards,
Michael Welzl

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