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

From: "Bruce Davie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:01:24 -0500

One observation that I might make about the current debate on re-naming EF
is that it resembles the debate in front of the WG on Tuesday. Proponents of
EFRESOLVE are basically saying "draft-charny is a fine PHB definition, it
just isn't EF" which is exactly what they said on Tuesday. I believe the WG
voted to reject that position when it voted in favor of adopting
draft-charny as the basis for a replacement for RFC 2598. So we seem to be
simply rehashing an argument that was settled on Tuesday, with the same
proponents on both sides. As has already been said, this is simply ignoring
the WG consensus.

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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:51:07 -0800

Bruce Davie wrote:
> just isn't EF" which is exactly what they said on Tuesday.

Not at all. "Expedited Forwarding" per se was never a very helpful name.
Given the goal of clarifying the intent and role of the successor to
RFC2598, a name change is reasonable to propose and just as
reasonable to oppose. This would be equally true if the efresolve defn
was the succesor to RFC2598.

But you know that.

gja

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:22:49 -0600

Bruce, the reason I chose to put the naming question to the list is
that the naming issue was very far from explicit in the discussion
on Tuesday, and there wasn't time to make it explicit.

My intention is to close off the naming discussion tomorrow December 19,
and state what I see as the rough consensus.

  Brian