Subject: [NSIS] Open issue draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-05.txt

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:38:05 +0200

Hi,

I did not see this point on Cornelias slides:

>   Future versions of this document will describe how <Minimum QoS> can
>   be used by the QNI to send a discrete set of desired parameters.

So this is an open issue, right? Any proposals so far?
Might be good to set up a draft issue tracker..

Regards,
 Roland

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

---

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:30:09 -0500

Hi Roland,

> So this is an open issue, right? Any proposals so far?

I don't think this is an open issue according to the resolution of the
"Issue #5" discussion that was initiated last January:

Issue #5. Do we need support for signaling a discrete set of possible
values for parameters (in connection with using <Min QoS>?
Thread starts at:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg04588.html
Status (as reported at IETF-62, see
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05mar/slides/nsis-9/sld5.htm): 
o some support, approaches suggested by Roland Bless & Dave Oran; some
opposition, continuous (not discrete) values OK
o Changes TBD: if agreed, describe mechanism to signal multiple choices
of parameter values

IMO the sentence you quote should be removed from the draft, given the
lack of consensus to add this feature to the QSPEC at this point.  I
think such functionality should be considered along with other proposals
for future extensions of the QSPEC.  

In general, at this point I think we should try to 'avoid feature
creep', as Cornelia mentioned in her last slide.

Thanks,
Regards,
Jerry