Subject: Re: QoSSIG BOF - now what are we trying to do?

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:52:34 +0100

Hi all,

I have now seen various interpretations of what a QoSSIG WG should do; a
few think of DiffServ (and/or IntServ), some (including me - or is it just
me?  ;)  ) would like such a WG to work on stateless QoS signaling to make
the most efficient use of the network without actual network-side QoS
provisioning (this could be done with a "tweaked" RSVP, PTP or any other
protocol that encompasses QoS-signaling) and others consider it a forum
for a lightweight and more scalable resource reservation protocol. Even
moving the problem to an intra-domain level as opposed to end2end has
been requested.

Of course, QoS-signaling is part of all these efforts. But isn't that
too diverse for one WG? Personally, I doubt that we should redo the
RSVP work.

>implemented as a new "runmode" of RSVP!. In the meantime I propose a BOF
>for the organic eolution of RSVP into full standard AND a BOF for
>looking at an RSVP light mode for a simplified scenario using a
>potentially different transport mechanism.

I propose turning this into a new resource reservation BOF and a BOF for
other QoS-signaling related issues - which would be the one discussed here.

Comments?

Michael Welzl

---

From: "Istvan Cselenyi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:49:27 +0100

Hi Michael,

Michael Welzl wrote:
> few think of DiffServ (and/or IntServ), 

I agree, that work already has its forum = ISSLL WG

> some (including me - or is it just me?  ;)  ) would like such a WG to
> work on stateless QoS signaling to make the most efficient use of the
> network without actual network-side QoS provisioning (this could be done
> with a "tweaked" RSVP, PTP or any other protocol that encompasses
> QoS-signaling) and others consider it a forum for a lightweight and more
> scalable resource reservation protocol. 

I think both of these topics could fit in well into the QoSSIG BOF.

> Even moving the problem to an
> intra-domain level as opposed to end2end has been requested. 
> too diverse for one WG? 

Yes, I think we shall not split signaling in that way

> Personally, I doubt that we should redo the RSVP work. 

I agree and my feeling is that most of us reading to this thread want to 
roll out the recent RSVP work asap and let people to deploy it today. 
And taking already the next step = concentrate to the future of QoS 
signaling, independently what shall be the name of that.
 
> other QoS-signaling related issues - which would be the one discussed here.

I.e. you propose two BOFs. Instead of that, I think we could debate the 
first topic (functionality for resource reservation) on mailing lists and 
take the second (new protocol proposals) on the QoSSIG BOF. 

> Comments?

Check the sceleton and insert what I have missed.
 
Istvan

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boomerang mailing list
> http://soha.ttt.bme.hu/mailman/listinfo/boomerang

--------------------------------------------------
                Istvan Cselenyi                      
 Telia Research AB           Phone: +46-8-7138173
 Vitsandsgatan 9 B431          Fax: +46-8-7138199          
 S-12386 Farsta            Mobile: +46-70-3228801  
 Sweden        E-mail: [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------