Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Yesterday's EF discussion

From: "Bruce Davie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:14:10 -0500

I think Brian's proposal that the name EF be retired and that the PHB
selected by the WG on Tuesday be given a new name accurately captures the
contention of the RFC 2598 authors that we had defined a new PHB. However,
it was our clearly stated goal simply to clarify the PHB definition of RFC
2598, not to define a new PHB. One of the arguments made in favor of our
definition (not only by its authors) was that it closely matched the market
understanding of EF as currently implemented and deployed. And I believe the
consensus in Pittsburgh was that RFC 2598 needed to be cleaned up, not that
EF needed to be retired. So it is my impression that renaming our definition
to something other than EF runs counter to the consensus expressed in the
working group.

It was also pointed out to me prior to the WG meeting by one of the
proponents of the EFRESOLVE definition that it would be "irresponsible" to
retire the term EF when it is already well-understood in the marketplace.
Now that the WG has established consensus that draft-charny more accurately
reflects the understanding of EF than EFRESOLVE, I can't imagine that it is
any less irresponsible to retire the term.

What's in a name? Once a name has a widely understood meaning, it only
causes confusion to change it. A rose by any other name would smell as
sweet, but if you try to sell bunches of sweet-smelling, red frobnitzes on
Valentines day, the market will tell you what's in a name.

Bruce

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:06:33 -0800

Bruce Davie wrote:
	[..]
> A rose by any other name would smell as

Charney-compromise will smell as sweet even while the market learns
to call it by a more accurate name such as Defined Rate. I fully
concur.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Roch Guerin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:18:05 -0500

I'd also vote for keeping the name, and wont
add to the several compelling arguments that
have been made in favor of such a choice.
Roch