Subject: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:24:17 -0800

Dan, I was asked to do a review of the "new-terms" draft wrt PolTerm.  In
general, there is good correspondence, but I have a few minor comments.

1. In Section 2, in the second paragraph, it would be helpful to reference
the Policy Terminology RFC XXX (draft-ietf-policy-terminology-04.txt,
waiting in the editor's queue) explicitly, since that supports your
conclusions of SLAs being of a contractual nature.

2. The SLS definition in "new-terms" is a bit different (more restrictive)
than the definition in PolTerm.  The PolTerm definition tries to straddle
the contractual versus service/conditioning aspects of an SLS.  PolTerm
states that an SLS ...
        Specifies handling of customer's traffic by a network
        provider. It is negotiated between a customer and the
        provider, and (for example) in a DiffServ environment,
        defines parameters such as specific Code Points and the
        Per-Hop-Behavior, profile characteristics and treatment of
        the traffic for those Code Points. An SLS is a specific SLA
        (a negotiated agreement) and its SLOs (the individual
        metrics and operational data to enforce) to guarantee
        quality of service for network traffic.
It might be valuable to mention that the "new-terms" definition further
restricts that specified in PolTerm, for the DiffServ environment.

3. In the last paragraph of Section 2, where you quote from the PolTerm RFC,
could you make this a normative reference?

4. In the last sentence of Section 2, you say "Therefore, the relationship
between an SLS and a service provisioning policy is that the latter is, in
part, the set of rules that define the parameters and range of values that
may be in the former."  Would it be reasonable to say "... define and manage
to the parameters and range of values ..."?  The word "define" seems too
restrictive.

And, a few nits:
5. There are several weird quotation marks in the Status (``work in
progress'' and ``1id-abstracts.txt'').

6. In Section 6, there are a few typos...
'Hence the imperitive was"SHOULD" rather than "SHALL"' - should be
"imperative" and needs a space after "was"
'An egress DS-node at the edge of one DS-domain forwards packets an ingress
DS-node at the edge of another DS domain.' - needs a "to" after "forwards
packets"

7. Is there a reason for the last paragraph of Section 8 to look different
than the previous RFC summaries?  The grammar is written to correspond, but
the missing ":" makes the paragraph difficult to read.

Thanks for considering these.
Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:20 PM
To: Diff Serv
Cc: Kathleen Nichols
Subject: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for
draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

It is proposed to forward draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt
for publication as an Informational RFC. This is an informal
working group last call - please make any last comments
on this document by Wednesday, November 21.

N.B. This is an "informal" call because this is not a
standards track document. Nevertheless, the clarification
in Section 7 does refer to standards track issues.

  Brian Carpenter
  Kathie Nichols
   diffserv co-chairs

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Diffserv] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 07:04:57 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: IETF-Announce: ;
CC: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Differentiated Services Working Group of
the IETF.

	Title		: New Terminology for Diffserv
	Author(s)	: D. Grossman
	Filename	: draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt
	Pages		: 9
	Date		: 06-Nov-01

This memo captures Diffserv working group agreements concerning new
and improved terminology, and also provides minor technical
clarifications.  It is intended to update RFC 2474, RFC 2475 and RFC
2597.   When RFCs 2474 and 2597 advance on the standards track, and
RFC 2475 is updated, it is intended that the revisions in this memo
will be incorporated, and that this memo will be obsoleted by the new
RFCs.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

_______________________________________________
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: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:09:08 -0500

Andrea,
Thanks for the careful review.
> conclusions of SLAs being of a contractual nature.

Agreed.

> restricts that specified in PolTerm, for the DiffServ environment.

I'd be hesitant to alter the Diffserv definition, since this was subject of a 
great deal of working group debate.  However, some words to the effect that 
you suggest would be appropriate.
> could you make this a normative reference?

Ok. I'd lost track of the Polterm draft, and frankly forgot to check the RFC 
Editors queue for its status.  The way this was done reflected a concern that 
this draft would get hung up behind the Polterm draft indefinitely.  Since the 
Polterm draft is ahead, it makes perfect sense to make the Polterm RFC 
normative.

> to the parameters and range of values ..."?  The word "define" seems too
I'm having problems parsing your proposed sentence.   How can a set of rules 
"manage to" parameters and and a range of values?  

> progress'' and ``1id-abstracts.txt'').
There's some wierd character mappings in my HPUX workstation.  I'll move it 
back to a windows platform and spot clean when this goes to the RFC editor.

> "imperative" and needs a space after "was"
oops... 

> DS-node at the edge of another DS domain.' - needs a "to" after "forwards

well spotted.
> the missing ":" makes the paragraph difficult to read.

Will look into, thanks.
> Thanks for considering these.

Thanks again for the review.  
> Andrea
Dan

---

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:53:08 -0800

Pulling everything up here.  It looks like #4 needs a bit more discussion -
however, it is not a major issue for me.

1. PolTerm supports SLAs as contractual - Agreed to document this alignment.
2. Dan said, "I'd be hesitant to alter the Diffserv definition, since this
was subject of a great deal of working group debate.  However, some words to
the effect that
you suggest would be appropriate."
	- This is all that I was suggesting.  I totally understand how painful
these things can be - and I think that the definitions are aligned.  PolTerm
is just broader and this was intentional.
3. Normative reference to PolTerm - OK.
4. Service provisioning policy "defines and manages to parameters and range
of values" in an SLS.  Dan asked how rules can manage to parameters and
ranges.
	- This really depends on your rules.  For static "preconfiguration" rules,
then all that you are doing is defining what you want, and making it so.  In
the more general case of provisioning rules, you might have
"preconfiguration" rules, and other "runtime" rules that are invoked "if
<something happens>."  If/when something happens, then the actions of the
other rules might manipulate the environment to maintain (ie, "manage to")
the parameters and ranges, or switch to new parameters, or ignore
parameters/ranges, etc.  I was asking about whether we should generalize
what a "provisioning rule" might do.
5-7. Nits and typos - Will be cleaned up.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Dan Grossman
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:09 AM
To: Andrea Westerinen
Cc: Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert Wijnen (Bert)
Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for
draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

Andrea,

Agreed.

> restricts that specified in PolTerm, for the DiffServ environment.

I'd be hesitant to alter the Diffserv definition, since this was subject of
a
great deal of working group debate.  However, some words to the effect that
you suggest would be appropriate.

Ok. I'd lost track of the Polterm draft, and frankly forgot to check the RFC
Editors queue for its status.  The way this was done reflected a concern
that
this draft would get hung up behind the Polterm draft indefinitely.  Since
the
Polterm draft is ahead, it makes perfect sense to make the Polterm RFC
normative.

oops...

well spotted.

Will look into, thanks.

Dan

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive:
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.h
tml

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:22:08 -0500

> however, it is not a major issue for me.
<snip>
> what a "provisioning rule" might do.

Wow!  I'm struggling with the implications of that.  I'd assumed that to the 
extent that an SLS had dynamic ("runtime") elements, the new parameter/value 
tuples would be within the constraints of the same rules as the old SLS (that 
is, the rules are simple, static and non-dependent).

In any event, this seems like  a difficult construct to explain (both as 
sentence structure and as a concept).  If we were to put something like this 
in, it would need some explanation.  Otherwise, I'll be bombarded with the 
same newbie questions about this sentence until I'm 80.  Is this important 
enough to provide more text around?     

Dan

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:35:25 +0100

Given that new-terms will be Informational, I don't think we have to
beat this to death- Dan could perhaps craft some disclaimer text.

(Also, by the way, Informational RFCs don't have to worry about
the difference between normative and non-normative references.)

  Brian

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:01:49 -0500

> beat this to death- Dan could perhaps craft some disclaimer text.

My inclination at this point is to leave it as it is, unless Andrea can come 
up with a concise sentence or two that can be dropped in.  I think that policy 
aware readers will understand that we don't intend to be restrictive, and 
non-policy aware readers won't be confused.

> the difference between normative and non-normative references.)
It appears that all the references are normative.
Dan

---

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 17:55:31 -0800

Focusing on #4.

The text says ... "Therefore, the relationship between an SLS and a service
provisioning policy is that the latter is, in part, the set of rules that
define the parameters and range of values that may be in the former."

<Dan> My inclination at this point is to leave it as it is, unless Andrea
can come
up with a concise sentence or two that can be dropped in.  I think that
policy
aware readers will understand that we don't intend to be restrictive, and
non-policy aware readers won't be confused.

Can we say "the set of rules that IMPLEMENT the parameters and range of
values ..."?  My problem is with the word DEFINES.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Westerinen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:53 PM
To: Dan Grossman
Cc: Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert Wijnen (Bert)
Subject: RE: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for

Andrea

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:44:53 -0500

> values ..."?  My problem is with the word DEFINES.

"Implements" is worse because the rules have nothing to do with
implementation (a standardization absolute).  If you think "defines"
crosses a boundary, I suggest "specifies".

---

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:45:54 -0800

But, my issue is with the word, "define" or "specify".  IMHO, the SLS
"defines" the values or behavior, and the rules "act on" or "realize" the
definition.  I didn't equate "implement" with "implementation", but I can
see the problem with that word.

Does "realize" make it better or worse ("... the set of rules that realize
the parameters and range ...")?

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Scott Brim
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 2:45 PM
To: Andrea Westerinen
Cc: Dan Grossman; Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert Wijnen
(Bert)
Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for
draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:44:45 +0100

The way we have taken to using the word "policy" in our technology is
a bit strange - in normal English, "policy" is more abstract and general
than a specific set of rules. Hence the problem, I think.

How about "express" instead of "define"?

   Brian

---

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 00:54:20 -0800

"Express" is better.  I am ok with that.
Thanks.
Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:45 AM
To: Andrea Westerinen
Cc: Scott Brim; Dan Grossman; Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert
Wijnen (Bert)
Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for
draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

   Brian

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:48:05 -0500

Express it will be.