Subject: [Diffserv] standardization of new BA descriptions reg.

From: prasanna jagannathan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:07:41 -0500 (EST)

HI,

From the BA definitions draft, is it true

that new BA descriptions will be discussed  but however will not be  
standardized ? 

If so when and who will standardize the new BA descriptions ? 

or

NO more BA descriptions will be discussed ?

It would be very helpful if this is made clear.

cheers,
Prasanna Kumar.

_______________________________________________
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: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 15:11:05 -0700

Some of this should be in the Adelaide minutes, but see below:

> NO more BA descriptions will be discussed ?

It is an item that is open for WG discussion whether to
make these Informational or Experimental RFCs, perhaps
something that becomes BCP? I put this on a slide at
Adelaide, but we didn't discuss this. There was at least
one person who felt this type of document isn't necessary.
Brian and I (and our AD, I believe) think these descriptions
should not be a required part of the standard, but they
are meant to give information about how the rules at a
DS domain edge plus PHBs can be configured to give particular
characteristics. Whether a network operator chooses to
use any particular BA is optional. Although there probably
needs to be a widely understood description of what is
intended by "best effort" (if we keep that term). This is
another open discussion topic.

I can see where this looks confusing in the charter milestones,
but no, it is now an active charter item to work on such
descriptions. See section 9.0 of the BA definition draft for
our first cut at how we might see this going. 

	Kathie

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 20:20:57 -0700

Kathleen Nichols wrote:
	[..]
> Although there probably

Perhaps "FU" service, as in Fairly Useful? Pronounced "foo", in line
with conventional IETF usage of the word to cover imprecise scenarios.
(Coincidentally, this is also how the two letters are pronounced in
'snafu', not to suggest Best Effort networks are usually FU'd :-)

cheers,
gja

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 21:35:39 -0700

What a great name!

---

From: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Apr 2000 10:14:36 +0200

So who's going to write down the FU BA definition?
-- 
Simon.

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 10:52:12 -0700

Looks like Grenville volunteered. The question is whether to make
it a section in the BA spec doc or a very short stand alone document.
Oh, yes, and just when Grenville will finish it...

---

From: Rogerio Andrade <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:38:42 -0300 (EST)

In Portuguese, this name ("FU..", actualy a slang) is a little bit
dirtier :-)

	[]'s
	Rogerio.

Rogerio de Carvalho Andrade
Analista de Suporte - Embrapa - DIN
 mailto:[email-masked]
Mestrando em Ciencia da Computacao - UFPE - DI
 mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 06:31:44 -0700

I'll do it just after I finish my upcoming work entitled
"Men are from RFC2022, Women are from RFC2191"....

cheers,
gja