Subject: MSF SCI Req #75 and #76

From: Jaroslaw Sydir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:42:49 -0700

I agree with the opinion expressed by Avri.   Providing a flexible
service model as part of GSMP v3 makes sense. Using a service level
abstraction provides the correct tradeoff between controller complexity
and granularity of control. A flexible service model will allow most
controllers to accomplish their task without having to understand the
abstracted, but still gory, details of the queueing structure and
scheduling algorithms of multiple switches.

Since it is possible that there will be specialized controllers that
cannot work with a service model, it makes sense to define the resource
model as a GSMP extension. This will allow vendors who wish to
differentiate themselves to implement the resource model without forcing
all vendors to implement something that, in my opinion, will be used
only in certain special cases. I could be wrong, but there will have
been no harm done if everybody implements and uses the GSMP resource
model extension.

Also, I do not believe that the resource model must be part of the base
GSMP v3 protocol in order to satisfy MSF requirement 76. I believe that
the solution that Avri describes meets the MSF requirement.

Regards,
Jerry Sydir

--
Jerry Sydir                    phone: +1(650) 938-8066 x102
CPlane Inc.                    fax  : +1(650) 938-8068
5150 El Camino Real Suite B-31
Los Altos, CA 94022