Subject: RFC 3248 on Delay Bound alternative revision of RFC 2598

From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:10:28 -0800

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 3248

        Title:	    A Delay Bound alternative revision of RFC 2598 
        Author(s):  G. Armitage, B. Carpenter, A. Casati,
                    J. Crowcroft, J. Halpern, B. Kumar, J. Schnizlein 
        Status:     Informational
	Date:       March 2002
        Mailbox:    [email-masked], [email-masked],
                    [email-masked], [email-masked],
                    [email-masked], [email-masked],
                    [email-masked] 
        Pages:      11
        Characters: 21597
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:  None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-diffserv-efresolve-01.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3248.txt

For historical interest, this document captures the EF Design Team's
proposed solution, preferred by the original authors of RFC 2598 but
not adopted by the working group in December 2000.  The original
definition of EF was based on comparison of forwarding on an unloaded
network.  This experimental Delay Bound (DB) PHB requires a bound on
the delay of packets due to other traffic in the network.  At the
Pittsburgh IETF meeting in August 2000, the Differentiated Services
working group faced serious questions regarding RFC 2598 - the group's
standards track definition of the Expedited Forwarding (EF) Per Hop
Behavior (PHB).  An 'EF Design Team' volunteered to develop a
re-expression of RFC 2598, bearing in mind the issues raised in the
DiffServ group.  At the San Diego IETF meeting in December 2000 the
DiffServ working group decided to pursue an alternative re-expression
of the EF PHB.

This document is a product of the Differentiated Services Working
Group of the IETF. 

This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to [email-masked].  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to [email-masked].

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body 
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

        To: [email-masked]
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.echo 
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
[email-masked].  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader 
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
of the RFCs.