Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Possible compromise between EFRESOLVE and draft-ch arny

From: Bill Courtney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:46:19 -0500 (EST)

Maybe, Brian. At least YOU decided that. Recent messages would
suggest that many regard S as a figure of merit. (I am not
among them. I think that nothing that performs as badly as S
should be called a figure-of-merit.) 

Others cannot imagine an EF definition that admits every router 
that offers any finite delay variation bound (no matter how 
large) without any advertised value that might be used by 
engineers to configure their networks (i.e., without any 
advertised figure-of-merit).

Bill

Brian wrote:

> We decided a couple of weeks ago that
> a) the EFRESOLVE S should be renamed Scale instead of Score
> b) it is not a figure of merit but merely a bound that must
> exist as a finite value

> So I suggest we stop asking the same question repeatedly.

>  Brian Carpenter
>  diffserv co-chair

_______________________________________________
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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:21:37 -0600

Bill,

Actually I believe the design team accepted the change in
interpretation. I agree that you wouldn't comparison shop based
on S. I would expect vendors to characterise their products
with other metrics entirely, but it doesn't follow that
we attempt to standardise them.

  Brian