Subject: [Diffserv] comments on PIB document

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:01:26 -0800

-clean up terminology and make consistent with MIB and Model

-the authors note they can't do hierarchical queueing with
their structure, but this is for future. Suggest some
effort to do this and see if/how it impacts the structure.

-looks like can't have a non-work conserving scheduler

-is the 802 stuff appropriate here?

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:42:33 -0600

Indeed, I'm very unclear why the 802 stuff is included. Who ordered that?
If 802 is covered, why isn't ATM QOS or MPLS COS covered? It seems quite
out of place to me, and an arbitrary choice.

That's not say there shouldn't be an 802 PIB, but it shouldn't be mixed
in with vanilla diffserv.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
Attend INET 2000: http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
Non-IBM email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Michael Fine" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:24:01 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

> -looks like can't have a non-work conserving scheduler

Not clear what you mean here.  Do you suggest we not support non-work
conserving schedulers?  We were planning on adding support for this
(or at least attempting to do so).

 > Indeed, I'm very unclear why the 802 stuff is included. Who ordered that?

Some of the PIB co-authors are supporting this in their
implementations and so wanted it included.

 > out of place to me, and an arbitrary choice.

Not quite arbitrary.  Since classification is done at the edge and
most edge traffic is ethernet, it covers a huge fraction of the
real-world situations (assuming you want to classify on the L2 header
in the first place).

 > in with vanilla diffserv.

I think this is a good point.  Unless someone comes up with a
compelling justification for keeping it we will remove it.

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:22:57 -0800

> Kathleen Nichols writes:
....
> (or at least attempting to do so).

Sorry, for being overly terse. No, what I was saying was that
your current draft looks like it can't have a non-work
conserving scheduler. But since you said you were going to
add this, that answers what I intended to ask anyway.

	Kathie