Subject: ISSLL WG Agenda for 50th IETF

From: John Wroclawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:07:12 -0500

Agenda for ISSLL WG meeting
50th IETF
Minneapolis, MN

(1 hour meeting)

* draft-ietf-issll-rsvp-cap-02.txt (5 minutes)

- Definition of the RSVP CAP object. Aimed at Proposed Standard. 
Opportunity to raise, review, and address any open issues. 
Expectation is that we will put the document forward in the immediate 
future.

* draft-hamid-issll-rsvp-cap-dsmark-00.txt (15 minutes)

- Companion draft to the above. Aimed at Info RFC. Documents use of 
the RSVP CAP object to negotiate Diffserv marking point. New version 
incorporates comments from mail list and discussion at 49th IETF. 
Review changes, discuss remaining open issues.

* draft-ietf-issll-ds-map-01.txt (n < 40 minutes)

This is the intserv-to-diffserv service mapping document; which 
describes ways to configure a diffserv network to act as an element 
of an intserv end-to-end QoS path. The current version is incomplete 
and somewhat out of date. Purpose of the discussion is to agree on 
scope of changes and disposition of the document going forward, 
particularly in the two areas below.

Remaining Issues:

- Document appropriate approximations of intserv services. It may be 
inappropriate to  implement the intserv G service, particularly, in a 
diffserv cloud, because  because existing applications do not 
actually expect the full service level and the full level would be 
very hard to provide in a DS domain.

- Document implementation of statistically assured services. The 
Intserv CL service is statistically assured by definition. Practical 
approximations of G service may exhibit statistical behavior, because 
a mathematical guarantee in a DS environment is extremely expensive 
and demanding of network resources. Existing research results provide 
useful guidance for this, but are not presently described in the I-D.

---

From: "Muhammad Jaseemuddin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:29:34 -0500

I am bit confused here. If the CAP object draft is eventually accepted as a
proposed standard, then how come the
draft-hamid-issll-rsvp-cap-dsmark-00.txt that defines a bit in the object
will have an informational status? Shouldn't also the bit definitons of a
standard object be proposed standard?

- Muhammad Jaseemuddin

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Wroclawski [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:07 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	ISSLL WG Agenda for 50th IETF
>