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

From: Jon Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:11:41 -0500

Brian 

>    What should the name of the PHB be?
>      Chair's proposal: Defined Rate (DR). I believe that 
> after this long and confusing discussion, it would be wise
> to retire the previous name.

If we had wanted to retire the name, then we would have just proposed a new
PHB, and but we were not, we were clarifying the EF PHB, and the those in
the room agreed with our clarification. It is clear that what was being
discussed was what to do with EF, our assertion all along has been that what
we wrote in draft-charny is what 2598 'says' regardless of what Van 'meant'
to say. And that what it 'says' has been implemented  by a lot of people
already. To suggest that draft-charny should do anything other that obsolete
RFC 2598 and be advanced as the EF PHB would be to suggest that it is in
fact not the same as PHB. This would suggest that we had defined a new PHB,
which would

a) as you your self have pointed out be in violation of the WG charter and
so is clearly not an option.

b) leave the would outside thinking that there are two different PHB's EF
and some new PHB. 

In addition you asked asked us on the list what our intentions for the draft
were and were told that it was to obsolete 2598, and the EFRESOLVE draft
states that it is proposed as a replacement for RFC 2598 and I quote;

" An 'EF design team' was formed after the
  Pittsburgh IETF meeting to synthesize a new expression of the EF PHB.
  This Internet Draft captures our feedback to the DiffServ WG on a
  proposed revision to the EF PHB definition.

  A formal revision to RFC 2598 will be derived from this document."

draft-charny had the same purpose, to be the basis for a formal revision of
the EF PHB, the room was vastly in favor of our revision of EF, the room was
also vastly opposed to two PHBs, I submit that leaving RFC 2598 unchanged as
the EF PHB and introducing draft-charny as the FOO PHB besides violating the
WG charter is simply to ignore the consensus of the room. I see no basis for
this suggested approach and am fully opposed to it.

_______________________________________________
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 11:49:36 -0800

Jon Bennett wrote:
	[..]
> the room was
> also vastly opposed to two PHBs,

This is so stunningly different to my recollection as to leave me
wondering what rooms we were in.  Standing quietly at the rear
room, I saw (with my own two beady little eyes) the question
of "can the WG accept two PHBs" receive more 'yes' than 'no'.  

(The crowd was certainly with charny-compromise on the different,
and more specific question of which text to use *if* there was to
be only one PHB. But that *is* a different question.)

cheers,
gja

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:51:40 -0600

Jon, just an (obvious) point  of clarification: RFC 2598 will not go
away - it will stay there for ever, presumably marked in the index as
(Obsoleted by RFCxxxx). 

Your preference for not changing the name is noted.

  Brian

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:13:37 -0800

live and learn, i suppose. i saw the votes taken on
questions on the slides, and then turned away - perhaps
i *was* in a different room by the time of the final
iteration ;)

cheers,
gja

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> Grenville,
> 
> Actually Jon is correct because my final iteration was: would
> the WG *prefer* one or two PHBs, which produced a large majority
> for only one.
> 
>   Brian
> 
> Grenville Armitage wrote:
> >
> > Jon Bennett wrote:
> >         [..]
> > > the room was

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                    http://members.home.net/garmitage/
Bell Labs Research Silicon Valley

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:54:14 -0600

Grenville,

  Brian