Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Nits in draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-04

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:29:02 -0700

On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> General terminology: The draft refers to the proposed service class 
> (es?) with the following different names:
> - Capacity-Admitted Traffic

 From the title. It refers to traffic of various classes that need  
capacity admission

> - Admitted Telephony service class

One of the service classes, specifically the Telephony Service Class  
from RFC 4594 but with admission.

> - Admitted Service Classes

 From the title of the paragraph that describes possible  
implementation approaches. Since I am only talking about VOICE-ADMIT,  
I changed it to Admitted Telephony Service Class

> - VOICE-ADMIT

 From the rest of the sentence that the phrase is found in, this  
should be apparent.

> - EF2

 From a graphic; I changed it and EF to "Unadmitted Voice" and  
"Admitted Voice".

> Para 1: Not clear what you mean by 'edge network'.

Networks that are not (at least in the given instance) transit  
networks. Networks at the edges. Taken in the context of the words at  
the other end of the sentence, networks that depend on other networks  
that can be characterized as "the Internet Backbone".

I won't go into the details of the comments you made in between. I  
picked them all up, I think.

> "It implements the Telephony Service Class described in [RFC4594]  
> at lower speeds and is included in the Real Time Treatment  
> Aggregate [RFC5127] at higher speeds."
> (These two RFCs are informational. I don't think you mean to make a  
> standards action depend on informational stuff.)

Well, they probably should be BCPs. They were written as BCPs. We  
didn't make them BCPs for the simple reason that while we have  
extensive experience with classes *like* these, we didn't have  
experience with exactly *these* when they were first written (the  
original text being described and discussed in ieprep in Yokohama,  
2002). We have quite a bit now. The other issue that will come up is  
getting people that use them to document how they use them. I have  
found service providers and enterprise networks very reluctant to  
detail the internal operations of their networks. But that they use  
these models in business class services - google is your friend.

The entire document is based on 4594. Pretending otherwise is silly.