Subject: [Tsvwg] draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:45:25 -0800

I was going to let people read the document and decide what they  
thought before asking this question, but I note that many of my  
compatriots are posting -00 drafts and asking for the working group  
to take them up. As such, it seems like I should do the same.

I would like to ask that the document be accepted as a working group  
document.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:51:38 -0800

> I would like to ask that the document be accepted as a working group

Strongly support.  The concept is effective and there are real-world
requirements for it.  The draft needs cleaning up, clarification and
generalization (e.g. "voice").

---

From: "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:02:58 -0500

I strongly support it as a working group document.

An

---

From: Dave McDysan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:33:27 -0500

I support adoption of this draft as a WG document as well.

As I mentioned in the meeting, I would also like to see the concept of
"tighter" admission control generalized to apply to other applications than
voice (e.g., video).

I also suggest that the WG investigate applying this concept of using
different DSCP marking and implementation of different classes (see section
2.1 of the I-D) to other PHBs.

I also recommend that the draft emphasize (i.e., make the statement in
multiple places) that packets that have not been subjected to the "tighter"
admission control need to be remarked to some other code point (e.g., the
"looser" admission control DSCP) at all UNI and NNI points (see Figure 1). I
thought the draft made this statement, but looking for it again I could not
readily find it.

Dave

> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:52 PM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp
> 
> > compatriots are posting -00 drafts and asking for the 
> working group to 
> > take them up. As such, it seems like I should do the same.
> > 
> Strongly support.  The concept is effective and there are 
> real-world requirements for it.  The draft needs cleaning up, 
> clarification and generalization (e.g. "voice").
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:18:44 -0600

AT&T supports this draft progressing in a timely manner and its
adoption as a WG document.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McDysan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:33 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp

As I mentioned in the meeting, I would also like to see the concept of
"tighter" admission control generalized to apply to other applications
than
voice (e.g., video).

I also suggest that the WG investigate applying this concept of using
different DSCP marking and implementation of different classes (see
section
2.1 of the I-D) to other PHBs.

I also recommend that the draft emphasize (i.e., make the statement in
multiple places) that packets that have not been subjected to the
"tighter"
admission control need to be remarked to some other code point (e.g.,
the
"looser" admission control DSCP) at all UNI and NNI points (see Figure
1). I
thought the draft made this statement, but looking for it again I could
not
readily find it.

Dave

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:53:45 -0800

> 2.1 of the I-D) to other PHBs.

I'm looking for something I can put into action in text. Would this  
be, in the IANA section, a definition of a PHB for admitted video?  
Are you looking for a completely parallel set of code points for RFC  
4594? What?