Subject: [Tsvwg] RFC-editor publication: draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:08:04 +0100

Dear QoS experts,

I am the shepherding AD for the RFC 3932 review of the RFC editor 
publication of "Considerations of provider-to-provider agreements for 
Internet-scale QoS" as informational RFC.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-provider-qos-agreement-04.txt

Abstract

    This memo analyzes provider-to-provider QoS agreements suitable for a
    global QoS-enabled Internet.  It defines terminology relevant to
    inter-domain QoS models.  It proposes a new concept denoted by Meta-
    QoS-Class (MQC).  This concept could potentially drive and federate
    the way QoS inter-domain relationships are built between providers.
    It opens up new perspectives for a QoS-enabled Internet that retains,
    as much as possible, the openness of the existing best-effort
    Internet.

RFC 3932 specifies how the IESG reviews and provides feedback on 
documents proposed for RFC-editor publication for conflicts with the 
IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community. In this 
process I would like to have your help to verify that I don't make a 
serious mistake by proposing the following response to RFC-editor and 
the IESG note to be included in the document. Please provide any 
comments about this to me no later than the 23rd of January.

Response to RFC-editor:

   1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF
       work.

IESG Note:

       This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
       The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
       any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
       IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
       The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
       discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:09:54 +0200

Hi Magnus,

I wonder how much response you got to your call for comments. In some 
sense it would be interesting to know whether this document is the 
opinion of these FT persons (maybe researchers working in an EU funded 
project?) or whether this reflects the company opinion (larger group of 
people within the company at least)*. The reason for my interest are 
statements like the following one:

"

   This memo shows that for the sake of scalability, providers need not
   be concerned what occurs more than one hop away (from their
   Autonomous System) when they negotiate inter-domain QoS agreements.
   They should base their agreements on nothing but their local QoS
   capabilities and those of their direct neighbours. 

"

which is obviously in strong contrast to what we regularly hear from 
other researchers (who happen to work also for an operator).

Ciao
Hannes

ad *) I am sure that someone of you would like to remind me that the 
IETF is about the opinion about individuals and not company opinions. 
Please don't tell me that. However,  there is obviously a problem with 
QoS in the sense that everyone seems to have an opinion about it but 
operators just don't want to deploy dynamic QoS signaling solutions 
(regardless whether they come from the IETF, ITU-T, 3GPP, ETSI TISPAN or 
any other SDO).

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:19:04 +0100

> statements like the following one:

I got very little response. But what I got was mostly that there was no 
danger in publishing it, only questionable gain.

The IESG decided on the no problem with publication on our last telechat 
  (24 Feb). So the RFC-editor has received its go ahead.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund