Subject: RE: Bandwidth Brokers

From: Yoram Bernet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 07:42:30 -0800

Mr. Young:

I am struggling to understand the purpose of your posting. It seems that you
are primarily interested in ranting, and secondarily, in creating a distinct
diffserv working group.Let me adress your ranting first, since it is the
more disturbing aspect of your post...

It seems that you are acusing Microsoft and IBM of "keeping others (from)
pursuing their own idea" and thwarting attempts of "others (to) do their own
ways". I don't think I have seen any postings that attempt to deny others
from being creative within the IETF forum. I also don't see any basis for
your statement that there are "two groups (which) believe in different
religions or ideologies". Speaking for myself, I applaud the efforts within
diffserv. I consider the diffserv work critical to the deployment of QoS and
very much complementary to the preceding RSVP/Intserv work. Just to be clear
here, it is not 'diffserv' *vs.* 'RSVP/Intserv'. Rather - I have been
proposing mechanisms by which the two can coexist and can leverage each
others advantages.

As for your question: 

	And how can you start talking about mapping Int-Serv to Diff-Serv
when
	Diff-Serv is not yet clearly (in detail, I mean) defined yet?

Have you ever written modular code? Do you wait for every module with which
you communicate, to be clearly defined before you write your modules? I hope
not. It is clearly possible to define interfaces between regions of diffserv
and regions of intserv and to allow work within those regions to continue,
without requiring them to be serialized one behind the other. In fact, I
think the essence of the healthy debate on this list has been not whether
the interworking of intserv and diffserv is desirable, but rather, how to
prioritize work in one vs. work in the other.

You state that you are 'sick' of the mailing list and imply that advocators
from IBM and Microsoft are pushing their products. I don't think that this
is the case. I have not seen this from IBM, and I have been very careful not
to advocate Microsoft products per-se. What I have been advocating is, the
role of the host, in general, in obtaining end-to-end QoS. I have been
saying that there are advantages that can be realized when hosts can be
expected to participate, intelligently, in end-to-end QoS. While this view
point can be argued one way or another, it is not an advertisement for
Microsoft hosts anymore than it is for Sun or Apple or Netware or OS/2
hosts. I have also been stating the fact that it is reasonable to assume
that there will be a large number of hosts available which are capable of
participating in end-to-end QoS. I feel that it is necessary to state this,
not as an advertisement for a particular product, but rather to enable
varying perspectives on the deployment of the technology, some of which
would not be possible otherwise.

Finally - you argue to submit a petition for a new working group for
Diff-serv. Did you attend the last IETF? The working group *is* in effect a
diff-serv working group. Diff-serv was the only topic of discussion. I did
take about 30 seconds to remind folks that we would like to not lose sight
of RSVP/Intserv. Other than that, the topic of discussion was diff-serv. Do
you really feel that there is not enough committment to a diff-serv work
agenda? If you feel a need to formalize beyond this - that's certainly
alright by me...

Yoram

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dae Young KIM [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 07, 1998 3:51 PM
> To:	Juha Heinanen
> Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Yoram Bernet;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: Bandwidth Brokers
> 
	[Yoram Bernet]  forwards omitted...
>  
> I'm not a vendor but seriously interested in QoS routers, and am strongly
> for spinning off a new working group for Dff-Serv ASAP.
> 
> Let's admit that it's as good as you two groups believe in different
> religions or ideolgies. Like we believe in having freedom of religion in
> daily life, there should be a freedom of technical belief within IETF.
> What
> authority does one have in keeping others pursuing their own idea?
> Remember
> that Int-Serv and RSVP are both given birth to thanks to this freedom of
> technical belief; I don't think everyone within the IETF agreed to the
> birth
> of this stuff at the begining especially in regard to the advocates made
> in
> the Int-Serv framework document(now RFC). Why don't you guys give the
> same,
> and fair, opportunity to other believers?
> 
> And how can you start talking about mapping Int-Serv to Diff-Serv when
> Diff-Serv is not yet clearly (in detail, I mean) defined yet?
> 
> I'm getting, along with others I'd assume, sick of this mailing list,
> losing
> patience in reading the same old repeating of the same arguments, due
> especially to advocators from IBM and Microsoft. Your products are fine.
> You
> do your way and let others do their own ways.
> 
> Let something happen, if anything. Let's submit a petition for a new
> working
> group for Diff-Serv.
> 
> --
> 
> Dae Young
> --------------------
> http://ccl.chungnam.ac.kr/~dykim/
>

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:00:52 +0900

Sorry for late response again.

Yoram Bernet 작성함:

> Mr. Young:
>
> I am struggling to understand the purpose of your posting. It seems that
> you are primarily interested in ranting,

If it's a ranting, how do you describe calling other's idea as 'laughable' as I
observed in an Int-Serv mail?

> and secondarily, in creating a
> distinct diffserv working group.Let me adress your ranting first, since it
> is the more disturbing aspect of your post...
>
> pursuing their own idea" and thwarting attempts of "others (to) do their
> own ways". I don't think I have seen any postings that attempt to deny
> others from being creative within the IETF forum. I also don't see any
> basis for your statement that there are "two groups (which) believe in
> different religions or ideologies". Speaking for myself, I applaud the
> efforts within diffserv. I consider the diffserv work critical to the
> deployment of QoS and very much complementary to the preceding RSVP/Intserv
> work. Just to be clear here, it is not 'diffserv' *vs.* 'RSVP/Intserv'.
> Rather - I have been proposing mechanisms by which the two can coexist and
> can leverage each others advantages.
>
> As for your question:
>
> Have you ever written modular code?

What a question. So, this is a way of talking typical of IETF culture, or? 'Have
you ever ..?'

> Do you wait for every module with

> which
> you communicate, to be clearly defined before you write your modules? I
> hope not. It is clearly possible to define interfaces between regions of
> diffserv and regions of intserv and to allow work within those regions to
> continue, without requiring them to be serialized one behind the other. In
> fact, I think the essence of the healthy debate on this list has been not
> whether the interworking of intserv and diffserv is desirable, but rather,
> how to prioritize work in one vs. work in the other.

Well, I was not going to get into the details of the technical things, but if
you want me to, I don't agree to the assertion that it has to be conditioned
from the start that diffserv QoS requirements should be signaled by RSVP
languages. In the simplest case, it's only that one or more relevant ToS bit has
to be set. Done. No extra talks between the host and the router will be
necessary. Even about the profile, if you subscribe for a profie as a written
contract, the ISP might configure its watchdog on the edge router and it may not
be necessary  for your host to send your requirement directly to the router.

And also in the case an orgranization or a campus subscribe to an ISP with a
bulk profile, the hosts inside the local cloud would not be allowed to talk
directly to the ISP's edge router in regard to QoS requirements.

And also, it may be the case that the QoS parameters available in RSVP messages
may not be suitable to carry diffserv QoS requirements.

Well, as I told you, I was not going to delve into the details, for other
gentlement were doing well to defend their views in a similar direction.

> is the case. I have not seen this from IBM, and I have been very careful
> not to advocate Microsoft products per-se.

The assertions have been, explicitly or implicitly, based on the 'yet to come'
availability,'expected ubiqutiy', and 'long long deployment/operation experience
of the companies' products. Or at least you've made, through your arguments,
such strong an impression to others, or only to foolish readers like me.

> What I have been advocating is,
> the role of the host, in general, in obtaining end-to-end QoS. I have been
> Finally - you argue to submit a petition for a new working group for Diff-
> serv. Did you attend the last IETF?

What difference does it make whether I was there or not. If you should be
interested, I've been attending the last three IETF meetings out of five, and as
for Washington, I just couldn't make it by chane. So, does this disqualify me to
say anything?

Again, what a question of IETF taste? 'Did you attend ..?'

> The working group *is* in effect a diff-
> serv working group. Diff-serv was the only topic of discussion. I did take
> about 30 seconds to remind folks that we would like to not lose sight of
> RSVP/Intserv. Other than that, the topic of discussion was diff-serv. Do

I do know that the virtually only topic of the Int-Serv meeting was diffserv,
but this fact does not extent to defend your arguments wrt RSVP-talking hosts.

--

Dae Young
--------------------