Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Re: comments draft-ietf-diffserv-rfc2598bis-00.txt

From: "Alexander Vainshtein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:45:19 +0300

Hi all,

I perceive (maybe incorrectly) the eclosed message as a call for the 
consensus opinion of the WG on the subject.

Personally I think that the clause on protection of the non-EF traffic from 
the possible over-expansion of the EF one should retain its MUST status in 
the new RFC version. Otherwise we could, as an extreme example, experience 
problems with the routing protocols which are definitely non-EF but should 
run properly in any (Diffserv-aware pr not)network no ensure its proper 
operation.

With best regards,
Sasha Vainshtein
[email-masked]

>From: Kathleen Nichols To: Bruce Davie CC: "Diffserv@Ietf. Org" Subject: 
>Re: [Diffserv] Re: comments draft-ietf-diffserv-rfc2598bis-00.txt Date: 
>Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:44:23 -0800
>
>
>Bruce, et al, I have another comment on your draft. I did make this comment 
>to you before you wrote the draft, so I'd assumed it was included. There 
>was a clause in rfc2598 that was required by the WG by consensus (this did 
>not come from the orignal 3 authors) that is in section 2, paragraph 2:
>
>
>"If the EF PHB is implemented by a mechanism that allows unlimited 
>preemption of other traffic (e.g., a priority queue), the implementation 
>MUST include some means to limit the damage EF traffic could inflict on 
>other traffic (e.g., a token bucket rate limiter). Traffic that exceeds 
>this limit MUST be discarded. This maximum EF rate, and burst size if 
>appropriate, MUST be settable by a network administrator (using whatever 
>mechanism the node supports for non- volatile configuration). The minimum 
>and maximum rates may be the same and configured by a single parameter."
>
>You draft states in section 2.10:
>
>"If the EF PHB is implemented by a mechanism that allows unlimited 
>preemption of other traffic (e.g., a priority queue), the implementation 
>SHOULD include some means to limit the damage EF traffic could inflict on 
>other traffic. This will be reflected in the range of supported R values as 
>described in section 2.2."
>
>You will note that the MUST was downgraded to a SHOULD. As WG co-chair, I 
>am quite certain there was no call for consensus on this change. On the 
>other hand, I know that we had a clear consensus to develop the new per-hop 
>behavior you describe and to call it the EF PHB, so perhaps it's reasonable 
>to assume that this should include a change of the above clause (which was 
>argued for quite strongly by several parties during the writing of 2598). 
>Still, I believe it should be made clear that, in addition to a change in 
>the definition of the packet treatment at each hop, there is a change in 
>some of the required protections, etc. If this is the consensus of the WG, 
>we can certainly go this route.
>
>Kathie
>
>_______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

_______________________________________________
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: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:54:52 -0800

> consensus opinion of the WG on the subject.

I think my intent was a call for discussion that would
proceed a call for consensus. But I think we can keep track of 
those who express an opinion in this stage for the consensus
stage. 

Thanks for you opinion and for making me be more specific about
the intent!

	Kathie