Subject: RE: [Diffserv] diffserv-pib-05 comments [sic]

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:39:36 -0500

Since the objective of the policy terminology draft, now long past
last call, was to document the broadest set of meanings with rough
consensus, including aspects of "role" beyond those found necessary
in the diffserv PIB is appropriate. Changing that is not a good idea.

We simply disagree with your implication that this definition precludes
the specific use of "role" in the diffserv PIB. 

John

At 07:46 AM 11/20/2001, Da Silva, Pedro wrote:
>Sure we're talking about different abstraction levels but the definition in
>the terminology draft specifically excludes any concretizations in data
>models (e.g. the one in the diffserv PIB) from having non-administratively
>assigned aspects to them ("Role(3): An administratively specified
>characteristic of a managed element").
>I believe that the diffserv pib is a good example of roles that have
>non-administratively assigned elements being a Good Thing: I was wondering
>what the general feeling about relaxing the definition in the terminology
>draft is...

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:41:07 +0100

I see no consensus in this thread that we need to change the
diffserv-pib, which is what we care about for *this*
last call.

   Brian