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

From: Cedric <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:59:37 -0800

I agree that the name EF should be kept.

Cedric.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Yesterday's EF discussion
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:15:28 -0800
From: Martha Zimet <[email-masked]>
Organization: Nokia IP Routing
To: [email-masked]

I wish to add my vote to keeping the 'EF' name for the following
reasons:

1. A new name will imply a new PHB, which is contrary to what I
thought the recent WG goals were (e.g. fix and not re-create). 

2. Since the 'EF' PHB (RFC 2598) was a proposed standard for a length
of time, like other vendors, we have already implemented our version
of the 'EF' PHB and its corresponding DSCP based on our understanding
of the RFC.  This is realized in our current Nokia IPRG products,
network management infrastructure, documentation, training classes,
etc. 

3. Changing the name will be the most confusing to the those who are
not well versed in the underlying semantics in the first place.  In
addition, it will cause added overhead to those of us who are involved
in explaining and socializing diffserv in our respective corporate
environments.

Regards,

/martha

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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: "Victor Firoiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:34:16 -0500

I am also in favor of keeping the EF name for essentially the same
reasons as below.

Victor Firoiu
Nortel Networks