Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC
Hi, My reading of this thread of comments is that there is no reason to change anything regarding the document. I will therefore progress this document towards approval. Regards Magnus Westerlund Brian E Carpenter skrev: On 2007-10-05 05:38, ken carlberg wrote: I don't recall when was the last (Diffserv-based) QoS talk at NANOG or similar operator-rich meeting. (Sure, there is the tutorial, but it doesn't count.) I would be concerned if outside groups spent time arguing foo is bad, or if they advocated other positions to the same issue. But I tend to feel quite uncomfortable with litmus tests based on inactivity of other groups/people. My personal view is that advocates of that line of reasoning place a bigger burden on themselves in providing specific in-depth arguments. Seems like a potential indication that most typical ISPs aren't working on or interested in this, this stuff is so trivial, or that coordination is not necessary. i appreciate work that is trivial because its generally simple, easy to accomplish, and leads to fewer interoperability issues. as for ISPs, its fascinating the disparity of how quiet and talkative they are depending on what side of the NDA you are on :-) In any case, if Pekka is correct, that's *exactly* why this draft and RFC 4594 are needed - to lay a minimum foundation on which ISPs can build operational practices and SLAs. It's always been clear to me that voice and video would be the main drivers for uptake of diffserv, and Marshall's comments confirm that. As that type of traffic grows, ISPs won't have any choice. Guidnace from the IETF seems entirely appropriate. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director TSVWG Chair -- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M -- Ericsson AB| Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, ken carlberg wrote: On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: It is not clear that consensus in the IETF and deployments is strong enough to approve/recommend any specific treatment for standards track DSCP values. could you expand on this observation? I don't recall when was the last (Diffserv-based) QoS talk at NANOG or similar operator-rich meeting. (Sure, there is the tutorial, but it doesn't count.) Seems like a potential indication that most typical ISPs aren't working on or interested in this, this stuff is so trivial, or that coordination is not necessary. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC
On Oct 4, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, ken carlberg wrote: On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: It is not clear that consensus in the IETF and deployments is strong enough to approve/recommend any specific treatment for standards track DSCP values. could you expand on this observation? I don't recall when was the last (Diffserv-based) QoS talk at NANOG or similar operator-rich meeting. (Sure, there is the tutorial, but it doesn't count.) Seems like a potential indication that most typical ISPs aren't working on or interested in this, this stuff is so trivial, or that coordination is not necessary. Dear Pekka; FWIW, in the video conferencing world, DiffServe QOS is ubiquitous. (This is pretty frequently over internetworks, but not generally over the Internet.) The same is true for IPTV, but of course this is not yet internetwork much. I would rate it as too simple and too deployed for NANOG. Regards Marshall -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC
I don't recall when was the last (Diffserv-based) QoS talk at NANOG or similar operator-rich meeting. (Sure, there is the tutorial, but it doesn't count.) I would be concerned if outside groups spent time arguing foo is bad, or if they advocated other positions to the same issue. But I tend to feel quite uncomfortable with litmus tests based on inactivity of other groups/people. My personal view is that advocates of that line of reasoning place a bigger burden on themselves in providing specific in-depth arguments. Seems like a potential indication that most typical ISPs aren't working on or interested in this, this stuff is so trivial, or that coordination is not necessary. i appreciate work that is trivial because its generally simple, easy to accomplish, and leads to fewer interoperability issues. as for ISPs, its fascinating the disparity of how quiet and talkative they are depending on what side of the NDA you are on :-) cheers, -ken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC
On 2007-10-05 05:38, ken carlberg wrote: I don't recall when was the last (Diffserv-based) QoS talk at NANOG or similar operator-rich meeting. (Sure, there is the tutorial, but it doesn't count.) I would be concerned if outside groups spent time arguing foo is bad, or if they advocated other positions to the same issue. But I tend to feel quite uncomfortable with litmus tests based on inactivity of other groups/people. My personal view is that advocates of that line of reasoning place a bigger burden on themselves in providing specific in-depth arguments. Seems like a potential indication that most typical ISPs aren't working on or interested in this, this stuff is so trivial, or that coordination is not necessary. i appreciate work that is trivial because its generally simple, easy to accomplish, and leads to fewer interoperability issues. as for ISPs, its fascinating the disparity of how quiet and talkative they are depending on what side of the NDA you are on :-) In any case, if Pekka is correct, that's *exactly* why this draft and RFC 4594 are needed - to lay a minimum foundation on which ISPs can build operational practices and SLAs. It's always been clear to me that voice and video would be the main drivers for uptake of diffserv, and Marshall's comments confirm that. As that type of traffic grows, ISPs won't have any choice. Guidnace from the IETF seems entirely appropriate. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC
On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: It is not clear that consensus in the IETF and deployments is strong enough to approve/recommend any specific treatment for standards track DSCP values. could you expand on this observation? -ken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
