Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] draft-baker-diffserv-basic-classes-02.txt

From: Branislav Meandzija <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 14:18:51 -0800

> 
> 
>  >> in taking the devil's advocate position, I'm curious as to
>  >> the response of the authors to those that would object to
>  >> the draft because it seems to be counter to the original
>  >> diff-serv architecture tenet that code-points should not
>  >> be "tied" to applications.
>  >
>  > I thought that was the wrong position at the time, and I
>  > think so now.
> 
> I think this draft should move forward. as a indirect benefit,
> it will avoid some possible DSCP misconceptions/misuse; as
> it suggests a standard DSCP policy configuration in practice.
> In multi6 list, Brian pointed to this work, when someone
> suggested a MH solution which proposed DSCP usage in a wrong
> way. Also, the draft was reviewed, discussed and got positive
> response in both ieprep and diffserv-interest list.

I also think this draft should move forward. We are in the process of formulating QoS requirements for Mobile Broadband Wireless Access (IEEE 802.20) and much of the stuff specified in the draft helps as a reference.

Branislav

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