Subject: grouping of signalling of microflows (was Re: [NSIS] proposals related to NSIS WG draft)

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:15:13 +0200

If I am not mistaken, we already closed this issue. The decision was not to 
include it as a requirement. This might be an optimization in certain 
cases, and it even might be useful from an application perspective, but 
nevertheless seams to more an extension than a hard requirement.

Marcus

--On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:43 PM +0100 Sven Van den Bosch 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> - in section 5.3: MAY support grouping of microflows (possibly only for
> feedback) As a consequence of the optimization for the interactive
> multimedia services, the signaling should allow one unique request for
> several micro flows having the same origination and destination IP
> addresses. This is usually the case for multimedia SIP calls where the
> voice and video micro flows follow the same path. This grouping of
> requests allows optimization of the QoS processing. Note that this may be
> detrimental for the call setup time. The use of grouping for microflows
> may be restricted to teardown and/or notification messages when call
> setup time is a concern.

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus

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

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:41:27 +0200

Sorry I was mistaken. We keep the issue open until we resolved the issue on 
bi-directional QoS path setup.

Marcus

--On Thursday, April 04, 2002 1:15 PM +0200 Marcus Brunner 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, we already closed this issue. The decision was not
> to include it as a requirement. This might be an optimization in certain