Subject: RE: [NSIS] Requirements draft and RSVP analysis draft

From: "Chaskar Hemant (NRC/Boston)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:51:48 -0500

Hi Marc:
 
In your "draft-greis-rsvp-analysis-00.txt" draft:

- Why is RSVP is too "heavy" on end terminals? It think that RSVP does
not have any complexity implications on end terminals, which merely have
to send and receive Path and Resv messages.

- About soft state: I think it needs to be reworded to imply that RSVP
uses "explicit" refresh messages. This can actually be done implicitly.
"Soft" state is not a problem in my opinion. If any protocol creates a
state for the transient packet session inside the network, the state has
to be soft. 

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Greis Marc (NRC/Dallas) 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:55 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [NSIS] Requirements draft and RSVP analysis draft

Hi all,

This is just to let you know that the two drafts I previously mentioned
are now available in the Internet drafts directory:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-greis-qos-signaling-requiremen
ts-00.txt

Abstract: This draft proposes a set of requirements for QoS signaling
protocols. These requirements are derived both from past experience with
existing QoS signaling protocols as well as new challenges which arise
for QoS signaling e.g. from mobile, wireless and cellular networks.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-greis-rsvp-analysis-00.txt

Abstract: The purpose of this document is to describe commonly known
problems with RSVP as a basis for future work on RSVP, which may result
in an improved version of RSVP.

Note that both drafts focus only on the signaling aspects, i.e. you will
not find any discussion related to the service provisioning mechanisms.

Any comments are of course very welcome!

Marc

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

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

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:44:33 +0100

Hemant and Marc,

> to send and receive Path and Resv messages.

If I understood RFC 2205 correctly, RSVP in end hosts also deal with 
PathErr and ResvErr messages, which are complicated in multicast 
management.

> state for the transient packet session inside the network, the state has

Agree.

Xiaoming