Subject: Fwd: [Diffserv] Diffserv at SLC and in future

From: "Mohamed El Gendy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 16:05:47 +0200

<br><br><br>--
Mohamed

>From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Diffserv] Diffserv at SLC and in future
>Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:22:22 -0800
>
>
>Diffservers,
>
>We have decided not to hold a diffserv WG meeting at the
>Salt Lake City IETF.
>
>As you know, the two documents we had in WG Last Call have passed
>with minor comments. This means that the WG has effectively completed
>all its milestones. All our drafts except one are on the way to
>RFC publication. The differentiated services story isn't over,
>but this WG has essentially finished the job it was set up to do
>in early 1998.
>
>We do have two PDB drafts in progress that aren't yet
>ready to publish, draft-ietf-diffserv-pdb-ar-01.txt and
>draft-ietf-diffserv-pdb-bh-03.txt. Both need to have
>their experience sections filled in before they can
>be advanced to RFC, but they are still "alive" as
>documents and list discussion, particularly of experience,
>is still relevant. We note that the next revision of
>the Bulk Handling PDB draft is in Roland Bless's hands (to
>add experience) and, we believe, is expected in Jan or Feb or 02.
>Draft-ietf-diffserv-pdb-vw is dormant at this time
>since the co-authors did major revision of a
>PDB definition for circuit emulation. This may be resurrected
>with an experience section in the future.
>
>When PDB drafts are ready in terms of the guidelines in
>RFC 3086, they should be posted as drafts and discussed by email
>on this list.
>
>Another potential use of the diffserv list is to raise issues
>that are barriers to implementation and require further IETF
>action, but such should not be confused with general implementation
>questions, which should go to the ds-implmentation list. We
>(especially BC) will be quick to let you know if you have the
>wrong list!
>
>You may also be interested by draft-conta-diffserv-fl-classifier-01.txt.
>However, since the diffserv MIB already allows an IPv6 flow label as
>a classifier element, we probably do not need any additional standards
>action in this area.
>
>Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
>   Kathie Nichols
>   diffserv WG co-chairs
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

_______________________________________________
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