Subject: [NSIS] NSIS Scoping (was Preemption)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:17:16 +0300

Hi James,

Clarification of NSIS's scope:

> If NSIS wants to migrate any of these networks over to IP, or be part of 
> any migration or transition, preemption ought to be defined the WG, albeit 
> as an option - with specifics surrounding that/those options.

NSIS is not working on migrating any networks to IP.  What NSIS will
(hopefully) do is create a signaling framework/protocol that can be
used to signal QoS.  This work may be useful for some network designers
who want to provide capabilities similar to other networks, but doing
this is not NSIS's primary goal.

John

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 13:17:58 -0500

>this is not NSIS's primary goal.

John, while I agree that is shouldn't be its primary goal, making sure that
certain realistic capabilities are *able* to be migrated a phase-in approach
towards IP networking should be included. If the goal of this WG is to more or
less operate in a vacuum, that's fine. I was just offering a suggestion,
especially now that Diffserv is being shut down (with those Chairs now stating
NSIS is the place to go within the IETF for QOS), to open your area up to this
capability as an option. I recommend including this option verses having to
retrofit it into your work down the road when this capability requirement from
SPs and semi-private networks will look for mechanisms to be utilized and find
that NSIS isn't one of them. I seriously don't mean that as any sort of threat,
I just am in touch with many network administrators that wish to have this
capability and want the IETF to continue to include the possibility of it in
Standards Track efforts.

All the while knowing that enabling this capability is a matter of local
policy...

>John

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:10:13 +0300

Hi James,

> I recommend including this option verses having to retrofit it into your work down the 
> road when this capability requirement from SPs and semi-private networks will look for 
> mechanisms to be utilized and find that NSIS isn't one of them. I seriously don't mean 
> that as any sort of threat, I just am in touch with many network administrators that 
> wish to have this capability and want the IETF to continue to include the possibility 
> of it in Standards Track efforts.
>
> All the while knowing that enabling this capability is a matter of local policy...

The best way forward for this is to document what those needs are.  Could you create
a strawman draft?

Thanks,
John