Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Part 2: FWD: response to comments todraft-charny-ef-definition-00

From: "Kent Benson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:29:52 -0500

Brijesh,

If you had some specific text I would certainly be interested in it.

Kent

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:54 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Part 2: FWD: response to comments
>todraft-charny-ef-definition-00
>
>
>Hi Kent,
>
>You are right.
>
>My guess is a new draft is required that:
>
>1) Identifies the problems briefly with the current EF definition (I
>don't think a very lengthy explanation is required.). There is a broad
>consensus that the current EF condition cannot be fulfilled as
>"written" in the draft.
>
>2) Fix the existing definition by removing the term "any time
>interval" which is causing all the problems and instead define the
>time interval as discussed earlier on this list. Basically, aim to fix
>the existing text with minimal changes rather than offer a full new
>definition for EF PHB (as done in the current draft).
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>--brijesh
>Ennovate Networks Inc.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kent Benson [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 4:10 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Part 2: FWD: response to comments
>> todraft-charny-ef-definition-00
>>
>>
>>
>> Brijesh,
>>
>> A clarification or consensus on the "any time interval"
>> phrase would be a
>> good start to clearing everything up.
>>
>> The goal of this draft was to bring the EF definition in line
>> with what
>> people thought EF required.  Since people are building boxes
>> that comply
>> with what they think EF requires the hope was that these
>> implementations
>> would be compliant with the new definition.  Unfortunately it
>> appears there
>> may be more than one "intuitive" understanding of EF.  This
>> would complicate
>> matters.  This seems like a good time to discuss what
>> everyone thinks EF
>> does and does not require.
>>
>> Kent
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/