Subject: Fwd: Re: IP Bandwidth Management

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 16:07:45 -0400

I don't know how this thread got separated from the list.
Forwarding it back in hopes it happens here instead of diff-serv

}From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
}Subject: Re: IP Bandwidth Management
}To: [email-masked] (Shai Herzog)
}Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
}Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
}        [email-masked], [email-masked], 
}        [email-masked], [email-masked]
}X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
}
}> >>The Policy WG doesn't do protocols and I think RAP isn't about
}> >>policy schema, but only the protocol+PIB.
}> 
}> There is the "PIB" mechanism (which belongs in the protocol, since it
}> is tied to a lot of transactional aspects), and the actual PIB details,
}> which should belong with each WG interested in using low level policy.
}> (In the same way MIBs are produced by each WG, for its own needs).
}
}The MIB analogy may or may not be appropriate, but if it is, it points
}in the other direction to what you suggest: the first MIBs were
}produced by the same WG as produced the protocol (the SNMP WG).  It
}was only later (when both the protocol and the SMI were stable) that
}each WG started doing its own MIBs.
}
}Keith.