Subject: [Diffserv] Enough said for now

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:01:29 -0600

Thnaks to everyone who commented on my attached summary of last week's
EF discussion in San Diego. I would like to summarise the rough consensus
as it now appears.

   A replacement for RFC 2598 should be drafted, in the strict format
   of a PHB definition as specified in RFC 2474, based on the 
   "possible compromise" revision to the model described in
   draft-charny-ef-definition-01.txt. This is to be progressed as 
   a WG draft intended to be submitted as a Proposed Standard.

   The name Expedited Forwarding and the recommended code point 101110
   will be used for this.

Bruce Davie has agreed to act as document editor for the new draft. In
private, both the RFC 2598 authors and the EFRESOLVE authors have
declined to be co-authors of the new draft.

I suggest that it would be appropriate to wait for the new draft before
debating its hypothetical content. There will of course be a WG last call
in due course.

   Brian Carpenter
   diffserv co-chair

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Yesterday's EF discussion
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:25:44 -0600
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organization: IBM
To: Diff Serv <[email-masked]>

Summary of conclusions from EF discussion on 12/12/2000
-------------------------------------------------------

1. After discussion, the 5 possible directions for the EF PHB were
reduced to 4:

0/ Do nothing. The WG agrees that we are not yet ready to replace RFC 2598 
due to lack of consensus. Publish the Charny et al and EFRESOLVE drafts as 
Informational RFCs, and revisit the question in late 2001.

This option was rapidly eliminated by straw poll.

1/ The WG agrees that the work of the EFRESOLVE design team is the basis of the 
revised EF RFC, and that Charny et al should be progressed for the record as an
Informational RFC.

2/  The WG agrees that the  work of Anna Charny's group, modified as in the 
"possible compromise" message sent to the WG by Bruce Davie on Decemebr 7 
is the basis of the revised EF RFC and that the EFRESOLVE draft should be 
published for the record as an Informational RFC.

3/ The WG agrees that the two groups are talking about two different PHBs 
and that they both should be worked on independentlly, as two separate 
standards track documents.

A first straw poll showed that a small majority of those voting would be
prepared to accept two PHBs (option 3).

A second straw poll showed that if only one PHB was to be standardised
to update RFC 2598, a large majority would prefer option 2.

A third straw poll showed that a large majority would prefer only one
PHB (this is not inconsistent with the first straw poll, but it
eliminates option 3).

It was however observed that anyone can submit a PHB to the WG, although
the WG charter currently excludes defining more standard PHBs.

There was insufficient time to discuss the issues of naming and
code points.

----------------------

Proposed expression of WG consensus:
  
   A replacement for RFC 2598 should be drafted, in the strict format
   of a PHB definition as specified in RFC 2474, based on the 
   "possible compromise" revision to the model described in
   draft-charny-ef-definition-01.txt. This is to be progressed as 
   a WG draft intended to be submitted as a Proposed Standard.

Open issues:

   Authorship of the new document.
     Chair's proposal: all contributors to RFC 2598, 
     to draft-charny-ef-definition-01.txt, and to 
     draft-ietf-diffserv-efresolve-00.txt should be recognized as authors.

   Should the recommended code point be 101110?
     Chair's proposal: yes

   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.

       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: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:13:12 -0500

>    The name Expedited Forwarding and the recommended code point 101110

Aw shucks. And here I had just come up with two really good names:

Adjustable Transport Medium - Constrained Bitrate Retardation, and

Adjustable Transport Medium - Guaranteed Frame Rate.

Or perhaps simply ATM-CBR and ATM-GFR, for short.

Bert