Subject: [NSIS] Seems Relevant

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:04:39 -0600

Hello all,

I'm not sure if it is too early for this but this draft seemed to discuss
many of the topics that have come up in the past related to this new effort.
Perhaps a read and discussion might help us on the requirements goal as
well.

I honestly don't know of any other WG that fits the bill for its discussion,
either.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-00.txt

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis (ELN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:11:18 +0100

Hi Glenn
 
Probably it will be fair if we first discuss the requirements and then
provide solutions!
 
Best regards,
Georgios

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morrow [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: woensdag 14 november 2001 16:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [NSIS] Seems Relevant

Hello all, 

I'm not sure if it is too early for this but this draft seemed to discuss many of the topics that have come up in the past related to this new effort. Perhaps a read and discussion might help us on the requirements goal as well.

I honestly don't know of any other WG that fits the bill for its discussion, either. 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-00.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-00.txt>  

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:15:38 -0600

I agree, I was just thinking a read might help with the requirements. I
understand that we don't want to get into solutions yet.

> From: Georgios Karagiannis (ELN)
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:11 AM
> To: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C330:EXCH]; [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] Seems Relevant
> 
> 
> Hi Glenn
>  
> I'm not sure if it is too early for this but this draft 
> seemed to discuss many of the topics that have come up in the 
> past related to this new effort. Perhaps a read and 
> discussion might help us on the requirements goal as well.
> 
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-braden-2level-signa
> l-arch-00.txt>  
> 
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:42:58 +0200

Hi Glenn,

> I'm not sure if it is too early for this but this draft seemed to 
> discuss many of the topics that have come up in the past related 
> to this new effort. Perhaps a read and discussion might help us 
> on the requirements goal as well.

Bob Braden has sent me some mails on the charter, so at least he is
aware of NSIS.  Hopefully he has subscribed to NSIS and comment
on his draft.

thanks,
John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:55:59 +0200

Hi,

I just browsed through the draft. It is in the NSIS scope, and should be
considered as input for the NSIS work.

Someone better versed in SCTP should see how SCTP could fit in as the Common
Signaling Transport Protocol (CSTP) instead of developing a new transport
protocol.

	Jarno

> From: ext [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 15. marraskuuta 2001 8:43
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]

thanks,
John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:14:47 +0200

Hi Jarno,

> I just browsed through the draft. It is in the NSIS scope, 
> and should be considered as input for the NSIS work.

I agree.  However, I think that we should realize that
we need to have some basic requirements first, in order
to be able to review solutions.

> Someone better versed in SCTP should see how SCTP could fit 
> in as the Common Signaling Transport Protocol (CSTP) instead 
> of developing a new transport protocol.

I guess that could be me - having been involved in SCTP
for quite some time.  A very quick read makes me think that
there would be some changes needed th the architecture 
presented in this draft in order to fit SCTP.  

I should spend some time analyzing the draft in more detail,
however, my initial reaction is that it goes beyond (in some
ways) the scope of NSIS.  It might be interesting to consider
a subset of the draft as being directly applicable to NSIS.

thanks,
John

---

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:16:56 -0600

The thing that sparked my interest was the concept of building in a
transport layer yet still allowing bundling. I wondered if the signaling
semantics of two different network functions would be complicated by a
common transport mechanism. I guess in the case of when you had one network
function that required guaranteed delivery bundled with another function
that did not require the guarenteed delivery you could just do guaranteed
delivery. 

The questions related to the NSIS requirements that this draft made me think
about are:

Should we consider a transport sublayer in the scope?

Should we mandate that path-directed signaling be supported?

Should we consider a generic integrity and/or confidentiality sublayer for
path-directed signaling?

Should these functions be combined into some sort of common path-directed
transport/security layer/level or should they be delineated more for
modularity?

Should the alerting and discrimination function for path-directed also be
combined with this signaling?

All of these things seem to add modularity but choices also affect the size
of packets so I could see how a discussion at some point would emerge
discussing the ying and yang between packet size and modularity?

I personally would rather start getting some consensus on these things so
that whomever writes the requirements drafts, addresses the issues.

If NSIS succeeds it will be a very big win for everyone in terms of a common
signaling set which should achieve an economy of scale of sorts. 

But clearly by the questions above, there are some very big architectural
things going on that effectively change the Internet Architecture to a large
extent. The new and emerging requirements of networks today spurn many
architecural questions. I propose that if anyone writes a requirements
draft, it would be prudent to include at least the architectural principles
that are motivating them as well as the typical abstract functional
dispensations. This will certainly help in the long term understanding of
the work from a historical perspective as well as initial acceptance.

I know this is sort of pre-review review or request for requirements but
these comments are motivated by timeliness and a desire for the output to
actually be implemented and mass deployed such that it is as ubiquitous as
IPv4 is today.

Thanks,

Glenn