Subject: [QOS_INBAND] next steps?

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:52:55 +0200

Hi,

since the BOF deadline for Prague has come and gone, I'm wondering  
what the current status of the QoS-inband proposal is?

At the last IETF meeting, there was agreement that the community  
interested in this proposal would bring it to the IETF, because it  
relies on extensions to IETF protocols that we should discuss. (There  
was also a related IETF liaison statement.) After the San Diego  
meeting, there was some encouraging follow-on activity, and draft- 
harper-inband-signalling-requirements has recently been posted. What  
is the plan for next steps?

Thanks,
Lars

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

---

From: "John Harper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:55:44 -0800

Lars,

When we discussed this in San Diego, I believe the agreement was that some
time would be scheduled in NSIS to look at the requirements for this work,
and I was about to get in touch with John Loughney to ask about this when I
got your mail.

In the meantime I also learned about the work on TCP QuickStart which I
guess must also be under your directorship. From a requirements point of
view, at least as far as TCP-based applications are concerned, there is a
great deal of similarity between these two topics. It would seem to make
sense, given the effort that has already gone into QuickStart, to address
this further. How would you advise that this should be addressed?

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:53 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [QOS_INBAND] next steps?
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:58:46 +0100

Hi,

Some comments.

> and I was about to get in touch with John Loughney to ask about this when I

I can't remember any agreement on taking work or even a requirements 
discussion into NSIS. Talking with the people active in that group is 
certainly fine. However as responsible AD for NSIS I don't want any 
proposals around this to be handled in NSIS. There are several reasons 
for this. You proposal has major impact on the infrastructure and needs 
to be discussed openly with good attendance of people from different 
fields. Thus a real BOF is needed before any real work can be taken on. 
Putting this discussion into NSIS would hide it from many that would 
need to participate in this. Secondly, NSIS should focus on resolving 
its own issues so that it can finish the currently ongoing work. I don't 
want time taken away from their agenda.

My memory of the agreement was that you should update the drafts, 
continue build interest and set together a BOF for these topics. As we 
stated in San Diego you needed to get on this directly. As this hasn't 
happened I think you will have to focus on building some interest with 
key persons, maybe hold a bar-BOF to discuss things.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:25:13 +0200

Hi,

> and I was about to get in touch with John Loughney to ask about  

that seems reasonable. NSIS is currently somewhat busy with their  
existing documents, so an alternative may be to schedule some time in  
a different meeting.

> this further. How would you advise that this should be addressed?

In my view, QuickStart has a much narrower scope that the QoS-inband  
proposal - there is no quality-of-service reservations or  
negotiations with QS, it simply enabled flows to more efficiently  
ramp up to consume currently idle path capacity. I agree that the of  
an IP option is similar, but the mechanisms surrounding QS seem much  
simpler.

Lars

---

From: "McGeer, Patrick C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:23:19 -0600

Magnus,
As I recall, we discussed discussing this in NSIS in Prague, and having
a "bar BoF" there, in preparation for a BoF in Chicago.  John Loughney
was certainly agreeable to discussing this in NSIS, and a number of
people at he meeting in San Diego (John Loughney and Scott Brim, in
particular) strongly suggested that in addition to the steps of forming
a discussion list, that we spend at least one more IETF meeting
socializing the idea before pursuing a BoF, and that NSIS was the
correct venue to start in because there were many others in that group
interested in the same issues.  Both John Harper and I are happy to do
this -- while we're understandably eager to move forward, we also feel
that it's extremely important to do this the right way within IETF,
respecting IETF's procedures and culture, and, most important, fitting
this work in the context of ongoing work within IETF.  NSIS and
QuickStart are two of the most prominent examples.

Cheers
Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:59 AM
To: John Harper
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [QOS_INBAND] next steps?

Hi,

Some comments.

John Harper skrev:
> Lars,
> 
> When we discussed this in San Diego, I believe the agreement was that 
> some time would be scheduled in NSIS to look at the requirements for 
> this work, and I was about to get in touch with John Loughney to ask 
> about this when I got your mail.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund