Subject: Re: BOF proposal announcement: Complexity of Implementing Differentiated Services

From: "Noriko Hata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:39:34 +0200

Jon,

The DISCO WG indeed includes the evaluations of the proposed schemes before
discussing their implementations in the "real life" operation.

Regarding the BoF, we don't mind having a BoF in Oslo. But, If indeed, a
strong support in the BoF will be evident for a WG formation, we do insist
that DISCO will be the WG to be formed.

DISCO already has more than 100 subscribers,

A charter of DISCO can be found at www.eye-tech.com/ietf-disco/charter.htm

Noriko
--
Noriko Hata
Digital Intelligence Systems.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
To: Noriko Hata <[email-masked]>
Cc: Kai Yokohama <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: BOF proposal announcement: Complexity of Implementing
Differentiated Services

>
>In message <003201bea48d$f4abdb00$529c44d4@euronet>, Noriko Hata typed:
>
>
> >>Are there any other proposers to CIDS interested in more information ?
>
> Noriko,
>
>I think there are significant difference between our
>two proposals - firstly I am
>not proposing a WG, jsut a BOF; but more importantly, we
>are interested in evluation of proposed schemes, not evalusation of
>implemenations of proposed schemes - i.e.  I think the BOF i am
>proposing is to look at a stage much _earlier_ in the process of
>getting diff-serv out there than the WG you propose - so i hope yo
>udon;'t mind, but I think I will proceed with this BOF anyhopw (after
>all, it is just one meeting in Oslo, not a whole work plan - in fact,
>i am fairly sure that it will NOT lead to a WG, so I think it has
>quite a different lifecycle!)
>
>
>regards
> >>--
> >>Noriko Hata
> >>Digital Intelligence Systems
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
> >>To: Noriko Hata <[email-masked]>
> >>Cc: Kai Yokohama <[email-masked]>; Ofer Avineri <[email-masked]>;
Yoram
> >>Bernet <[email-masked]>; Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]>;
> >>Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>; diff-serv <[email-masked]>;
jtw
> >><[email-masked]>; Fred Baker <[email-masked]>; Vern Paxson
> >><[email-masked]>; Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>;
> >><[email-masked]>
> >>Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 8:19 AM
> >>Subject: Re: BOF proposal announcement: Complexity of Implementing
> >>Differentiated Services
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>In message <005601bea2ee$077cfb20$43be75c0@euronet>, Noriko Hata typed:
> >>>
> >>>i can';t tell if there is duplication or not - can you send me the
> >>>agenda/outline of what you are addressing in DISCO please.
> >>>
> >>> >>Please note that DIS has already proposed a WG Bof for
Differentiated
> >>>
> >>> >>Contributions and assessments to DISCO can be directed to Kai
Yokohama
> >>> >>[email-masked] as DIS in charge personnel for maintaining the
DISCO WG
> >>and
> >>> >>finalizing the WG establishment procedures,
> >>>
> >>>is there a web page describing the proposed work?
> >>>
> >>>regards
> >>>
> >>>jon
> >>>
> >>
>
> cheers
>
>   jon
>
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:26:21 -0700

Jon,

I believe the real thrust of your proposal is to seek criteria for 
"selecting" among two competing technologies.  We have SO much fun with 
this task in the IETF but, alas, have never found a smooth or painless way 
of resolving such debates.

If I have the gist of the technologies and their services right, the 
Internet must, indeed, choose between them.  That is, it does not seem 
likely or reasonable to have the global Internet support them both.

However I fear that the particular path you are proposing will not 
adequately (re)solve the issue.  The crux of that fear pertains to your 
reference to simulation.  On the average, the only thing that has 
adequately resolved similar such debates in the IETF is getting the 
competing technologies built and tested in real-world 
scenarios.  Simulations and other 'hypothetical' exercises seem not to be 
all that successful in the IETF venue.  So we need real-world experience 
upon which to base the community decision.

Ahh, but what IS the real-world scenario?  That, I believe, it the major 
benefit in pursuing your proposal, namely to try to define operational 
scenarios that we BELIEVE must be supported.  I emphasize 'believe' because 
we don't really know, do we?  We have some good guesses and it will help to 
develop rough consensus about them, but we can't be sure until we start 
getting deployment and use experience.

Hence, I fear, the major focus of your proposed discussion should be to 
produce a "requirements" statement, one which encompasses operations, as 
well as functions, issues.

Normally, I loathe pursuing working groups that produce nothing but a 
requirements document, but in this case it might help.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:26:21 -0700

Jon,

d/

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:46:26 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Dave Crocker ty

 >>of resolving such debates.

no - this is exactly wrong - we are not trying to do this - we want to
map out a set of realistic scenarios (topologies and traffic patterns)
which are useful for simulation, measurement, and possible future
analsysis of services - this is not necessary for comparative
reasons.

 >>likely or reasonable to have the global Internet support them both.

the market can choose... as per always...the secenarios we wish to
document may not amount even to "criteria"

 >>upon which to base the community decision.

the BOF is in response to real work which is heading towards some
useful results.....

 >>requirements document, but in this case it might help.

the requirements for diff serv exist - this is a requirements for
people writing simulation, measurement analysis etc etc etc....see the
relevant EXISTING diff serv docs for some examples in appendicies.

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:46:26 +0100

cheers

   jon