Subject: RE: Bandwidth Brokers

From: Yoram Bernet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:31:26 -0800

Mr. Young:

You continue to astonish me with your unfounded ranting. Further, it seems
impossible to conduct a logical debate with you since your rants seem to be
non-sequitors. Nonetheless, you make it too tempting. I will respond this
one last time, and will not waste further bandwidth on debating you.

> If it's a ranting, how do you describe calling other's idea as 'laughable'
> as I
> observed in an Int-Serv mail?
	[Yoram Bernet]  
	It was Steve Berson who used the word 'laughable'. He is neither a
representative of Microsoft nor of IBM. In general, I happen to respect
Steve's technical opinions. I will not comment on his usage of the word
'laughable'. If you have an issue with Steve, please take it up with him. In
any case, if you are ranting, you are ranting - regardless of what words
Steve happenned to have used.

> > 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. 
	[Yoram Bernet]  
	This is the first I have heard of this assertion. I certainly did
not make this assertion. I suggested that it's worth investigating whether
it would be benficial to use RSVP to signal QoS requirements. I made the
assertion that diff-serv could be enhanced by the use of *a* signaling
protocol. 

> > 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.
> 
> 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.
	[Yoram Bernet]  
	Actually, I have not heard complaints such as yours from anyone else
on this mailing list. On the contrary, I have received a number of
correspondences affirming interest in our work and support for our
contribution to this mailing list. Therefore, I must conclude that indeed,
as you suggest, the 'strong impression' that has been made, has been only on
'foolish readers' such as yourself.

> > 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?
	[Yoram Bernet]  
	Of course it doesn't disqualify you to say anything. I am not trying
to disqualify you from speaking. I was trying to understand the basis for
your insisting that a special WG be declared. If you had not attended the
last IETF, I could have believed that you concerned that the WG was being
distracted from diff-serv work by talk of signaling protocols. In fact you
did not attend, yet you state below that: 

> I do know that the virtually only topic of the Int-Serv meeting was
> diffserv,
	[Yoram Bernet]  
	So - if you indeed know this for a fact, even though you did not
attend, what are you trying to gain by formally declaring the WG as
diff-serv only? I can't see what you stand to gain by insisting on such a
declaration. Therefore, I must conclude that, it is yet another rant.

	Yoram