From bdavie@cisco.com Fri Aug 6 14:48:12 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAF73A688D for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:48:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2rTAw492v9o for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583023A67D4 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAKMgXEyrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACgSnGrDJtEAoU4BIk3igk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,331,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="569819514" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2010 21:48:40 +0000 Received: from [10.32.241.73] ([10.32.241.73]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o76LmdMG025949; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:48:40 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <4C4F065B.4020508@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:48:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E1CCA29-23F2-42A8-BC24-5F9CAFF041D8@cisco.com> References: <4C4EE303.5080300@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4C4F065B.4020508@erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: Update from RSVP directorate on RSVP Candidate items? X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:48:12 -0000 On Jul 27, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > Bruce, >=20 > It's good to know that you favour adoption. I think we are still = working out the ways the directorate will work. Sorry for the delay... swamped like everyone else - commenting below on = the 2 more complex drafts. >=20 > I'd really appreciate a bit more detail, since there are quite a few = things that Chairs need to determine before we can allow the WG to = consider adopting the draft - The sort of things I'm interested as a = Chair are: >=20 > * What specs would this draft update: Does this seem to update = IntServ? Is it a minor update to RSVP? In my view, the 2 drafts MULTI_TSPEC and MULTI_PREEMPTION are an update = to how Intserv is invoked by RSVP, that is to say, RFC 2210. It is = relatively minor (although this is totally subjective). Intserv defined = some services. RSVP was defined as a mechanism to invoke services. What = this draft does is it says that you can invoke a service by saying what = service parameters you would really like, and which lesser set of = parameters you would accept. In the original RSVP design, you could only = send one set of parameters and get a yes/no answer. >=20 > * Are there any areas that are less mature than others from a techical = point of view: Can you see sections that would need more work? are there = missing sections? The draft looks pretty complete to me. But it will need careful = line-by-line review by one or more RSVP experts. >=20 > * Do we need to do this? Why? Well, it seems that in the current state of things, you can't use RSVP = to reserve the "right" amount of resources when the endpoints could live = with a range of possible levels. For example, if two endpoints support a = high bit rate and low bit rate encoding, you can't settle on the right = choice of codec in a single RTT today. So, to the extent that you = accept that this is a problem (which I do) yes, we need the draft. >=20 > * Do you know of indications that there may be a "customer" for the = technology: e.g. another working group? to support an application? etc? This is most useful to telephony/video conferencing apps in my reading.=20= >=20 > * Do you know of other things that may help the chairs understand = whether the WG should devote energy to this draft? >=20 > * Would one or more members of the directorate volunteer to comment on = progress of this and also commit to reviewing the document as we get to = WGLC? I'm willing to do this (but I see that Bob Briscoe has also done a = review which he has not yet posted.)=20 Bruce >=20 > * Anything else? >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > Gorry >=20 >=20 > On 27/07/2010 16:40, Bruce Davie wrote: >> Directorate, >> I don't feel I can speak for the directorate at this point, as I have >> only heard back from Bob Briscoe to date, and only with questions. = For >> the record, I am in favor of the WG adopting the 3 drafts that I = asked >> you to look at, but I'd like to hear from some more directorate = members. >>=20 >> Is anyone there? >>=20 >> Bruce >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >>=20 >>> *From: *Gorry Fairhurst >> > >>> *Date: *July 27, 2010 9:45:39 AM EDT >>> *To: *Francois Le Faucheur >> > >>> *Cc: *rsvp-dir@ietf.org , >>> "tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>> chair" >> >, tsvwg WG >> > >>> *Subject: **Re: [rsvp-dir] Update from RSVP directorate on RSVP >>> Candidate items?* >>> *Reply-To: *gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk >>>=20 >>> It would indeed be good to get a summary of feedback from the rsvp >>> directorate on these 2 drafts - please reply to tsv-ads and >>> tsvwg-chairs, if it is appropriate, please also feel free to copy = the >>> tsvwg list. >>>=20 >>> My understanding is that this consultation is to provide feedback = for >>> the ADs and Chairs. These inputs can help to determine if there is >>> sufficient interest and a need to adopt a draft. The RSVP = directorate >>> are not enabled to make a decision on what drafts are adopted. >>>=20 >>> If the directorate provide comments that support progression it may = be >>> helpful to also suggest some document reviewers who would commit to >>> comment on the document both as it progresses through the WG *and* = in >>> the WGLC. >>>=20 >>> Gorry >>>=20 >>> On 27/07/2010 15:26, Francois Le Faucheur wrote: >>>> Hello RSVP Directorate, >>>>=20 >>>> Any chance to get an update from RSVP Directorate regarding the >>>> submitted RSVP candidate items before TSVWG (Thur am)? >>>>=20 >>>> I believe the submitted candidate items are: >>>> * RSVP Multi-TSPEC/Multi-PREEMPTION >>>> * RSVP Flexible Resource Sharing >>>>=20 >>>> Also, for memory: >>>> * the meaty part of "draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing" = has >>>> been merged into "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info" >>>> * so the latest version of = "draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing" >>>> only contains a smaller optional delta on top of >>>> "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info" >>>> * the CCAMP plan is that "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info" be = progressed >>>> in CCAMP >>>> * I believe CCAMP is also proposing to progress >>>> "draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing" as a companion = document >>>> (this proposal does make sense to me since, again, the real meat is = in >>>> "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info"). >>>>=20 >>>> It would be good to get views on this plan. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks >>>>=20 >>>> Francois >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 10 May 2010, at 15:01, Lars Eggert wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> following the discussion during the IETF-77 TSVAREA meeting on = how to >>>>>> better review and progress extensions to (non-TE) RSVP and = IntServ, >>>>>> the transport area directors have formed a new RSVP directorate = and >>>>>> given it these tasks: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * Review of all new work related to RSVP and Integrated Services = that >>>>>> is proposed for IETF adoption. The purpose of this review is to >>>>>> advise the ADs and the chairs of the Transport Area Working Group >>>>>> (TSVWG) on whether a particular proposal should be taken on as a >>>>>> work item. The directorate will continue to guide and review such >>>>>> new work in TSVWG until it is ready for publication as an RFC. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * Review of selected documents during IETF last call or under = IESG >>>>>> review. The directorate monitors ongoing IETF work and should >>>>>> independently decide when a document will benefit from their = review, >>>>>> assign a reviewer and enter into a follow-on discussion with the >>>>>> authors. When deemed necessary, the area directors will on = occasion >>>>>> directly consult the directorate while forming their opinion on >>>>>> selected documents being under review by the IESG. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * Cross-working group review. RSVP documents may have relevance = to >>>>>> several working groups, including TSVWG and MPLS-related groups >>>>>> such as MPLS WG and CCAMP WG. The directorate will ensure that >>>>>> drafts submitted to TSV WG are reviewed in the appropriate = MPLS-related >>>>>> WGs if necessary, and will bring drafts from the MPLS-related WGs >>>>>> to the attention of the TSV WG as appropriate. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The directorate can be reached at rsv-dir@ietf.org >>>>>> >>>>>> . Additional information about the >>>>>> directorate is at >>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Lars >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> * >>>> Francois Le Faucheur* >>>> *Distinguished Engineer* >>>> *Corporate Development* >>>> flefauch@cisco.com >>>> >>>> Phone: *+33 49 723 2619* >>>> Mobile: *+33 6 19 98 50 90* >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> *Cisco Systems France* >>>> Greenside >>>> 400 Ave de Roumanille >>>> 06410 Sophia Antipolis >>>> France >>>> Cisco.com >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Think before you print. >>>>=20 >>>> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the = sole >>>> use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or >>>> disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the = intended >>>> recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please = contact >>>> the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. >>>>=20 >>>> Cisco Systems France, Soci=E9t=E9 =E0 responsabiit=E9 limit=E9e, = Rue Camille >>>> Desmoulins =96 Imm Atlantis Zac Forum Seine Ilot 7 92130 Issy les >>>> Moulineaux, Au capital de 91.470 =80, 349 166 561 RCS Nanterre, = Directeur >>>> de la publication: Jean-Luc Michel Givone. >>>>=20 >>>> For corporate legal information go to: >>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> rsvp-dir mailing list >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >=20 From bdavie@cisco.com Fri Aug 6 15:01:36 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194EA3A67D4 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:01:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XqGGhP2+5yZ for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573DA3A6767 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAK4jXEyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACgSnGrF5tEAoU4BIk3igk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,331,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="350003030" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2010 22:01:54 +0000 Received: from [10.32.241.73] ([10.32.241.73]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o76M1roY028646; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:01:53 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <4C4F065B.4020508@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:01:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4C4EE303.5080300@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4C4F065B.4020508@erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: Update from RSVP directorate on RSVP Candidate items? X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:01:36 -0000 Replying now about draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02.txt On Jul 27, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > Bruce, >=20 > It's good to know that you favour adoption. I think we are still = working out the ways the directorate will work. >=20 > I'd really appreciate a bit more detail, since there are quite a few = things that Chairs need to determine before we can allow the WG to = consider adopting the draft - The sort of things I'm interested as a = Chair are: >=20 > * What specs would this draft update: Does this seem to update = IntServ? Is it a minor update to RSVP? This is a straight update to RFC 2205. It is minor (IMHO). Much of the = content has been moved to a CCAMP companion draft = draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info-01 >=20 >=20 > * Are there any areas that are less mature than others from a techical = point of view: Can you see sections that would need more work? are there = missing sections? It's in good shape >=20 > * Do we need to do this? Why? RSVP currently offers some support for resource sharing (historically = designed with multicast applications in mind). However, this is = restricted to sharing across reservations with the same destination = transport address (ie with same Session). The proposed extensions retain = the existing concept of resource sharing, but adds the flexibility to = apply resource sharing across any arbitrary set of reservations. This = has been known for some years to be a useful idea for call scenarios = that are more complex that 1-1, e.g. 3-way calling, call-waiting, etc. >=20 > * Do you know of indications that there may be a "customer" for the = technology: e.g. another working group? to support an application? etc? Supports telephony/video conferencing apps >=20 > * Do you know of other things that may help the chairs understand = whether the WG should devote energy to this draft? The fact that most of the work is done in CCAMP should make this a small = effort for TSVWG. >=20 > * Would one or more members of the directorate volunteer to comment on = progress of this and also commit to reviewing the document as we get to = WGLC? Yes, I can do this one (and I hope other directorate members might be = able to). Bruce >=20 > * Anything else? >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > Gorry >=20 >=20 > On 27/07/2010 16:40, Bruce Davie wrote: >> Directorate, >> I don't feel I can speak for the directorate at this point, as I have >> only heard back from Bob Briscoe to date, and only with questions. = For >> the record, I am in favor of the WG adopting the 3 drafts that I = asked >> you to look at, but I'd like to hear from some more directorate = members. >>=20 >> Is anyone there? >>=20 >> Bruce >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >>=20 >>> *From: *Gorry Fairhurst >> > >>> *Date: *July 27, 2010 9:45:39 AM EDT >>> *To: *Francois Le Faucheur >> > >>> *Cc: *rsvp-dir@ietf.org , >>> "tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>> chair" >> >, tsvwg WG >> > >>> *Subject: **Re: [rsvp-dir] Update from RSVP directorate on RSVP >>> Candidate items?* >>> *Reply-To: *gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk >>>=20 >>> It would indeed be good to get a summary of feedback from the rsvp >>> directorate on these 2 drafts - please reply to tsv-ads and >>> tsvwg-chairs, if it is appropriate, please also feel free to copy = the >>> tsvwg list. >>>=20 >>> My understanding is that this consultation is to provide feedback = for >>> the ADs and Chairs. These inputs can help to determine if there is >>> sufficient interest and a need to adopt a draft. The RSVP = directorate >>> are not enabled to make a decision on what drafts are adopted. >>>=20 >>> If the directorate provide comments that support progression it may = be >>> helpful to also suggest some document reviewers who would commit to >>> comment on the document both as it progresses through the WG *and* = in >>> the WGLC. >>>=20 >>> Gorry >>>=20 >>> On 27/07/2010 15:26, Francois Le Faucheur wrote: >>>> Hello RSVP Directorate, >>>>=20 >>>> Any chance to get an update from RSVP Directorate regarding the >>>> submitted RSVP candidate items before TSVWG (Thur am)? >>>>=20 >>>> I believe the submitted candidate items are: >>>> * RSVP Multi-TSPEC/Multi-PREEMPTION >>>> * RSVP Flexible Resource Sharing >>>>=20 >>>> Also, for memory: >>>> * the meaty part of "draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing" = has >>>> been merged into "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info" >>>> * so the latest version of = "draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing" >>>> only contains a smaller optional delta on top of >>>> "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info" >>>> * the CCAMP plan is that "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info" be = progressed >>>> in CCAMP >>>> * I believe CCAMP is also proposing to progress >>>> "draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing" as a companion = document >>>> (this proposal does make sense to me since, again, the real meat is = in >>>> "draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info"). >>>>=20 >>>> It would be good to get views on this plan. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks >>>>=20 >>>> Francois >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 10 May 2010, at 15:01, Lars Eggert wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> following the discussion during the IETF-77 TSVAREA meeting on = how to >>>>>> better review and progress extensions to (non-TE) RSVP and = IntServ, >>>>>> the transport area directors have formed a new RSVP directorate = and >>>>>> given it these tasks: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * Review of all new work related to RSVP and Integrated Services = that >>>>>> is proposed for IETF adoption. The purpose of this review is to >>>>>> advise the ADs and the chairs of the Transport Area Working Group >>>>>> (TSVWG) on whether a particular proposal should be taken on as a >>>>>> work item. The directorate will continue to guide and review such >>>>>> new work in TSVWG until it is ready for publication as an RFC. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * Review of selected documents during IETF last call or under = IESG >>>>>> review. The directorate monitors ongoing IETF work and should >>>>>> independently decide when a document will benefit from their = review, >>>>>> assign a reviewer and enter into a follow-on discussion with the >>>>>> authors. When deemed necessary, the area directors will on = occasion >>>>>> directly consult the directorate while forming their opinion on >>>>>> selected documents being under review by the IESG. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> * Cross-working group review. RSVP documents may have relevance = to >>>>>> several working groups, including TSVWG and MPLS-related groups >>>>>> such as MPLS WG and CCAMP WG. The directorate will ensure that >>>>>> drafts submitted to TSV WG are reviewed in the appropriate = MPLS-related >>>>>> WGs if necessary, and will bring drafts from the MPLS-related WGs >>>>>> to the attention of the TSV WG as appropriate. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The directorate can be reached at rsv-dir@ietf.org >>>>>> >>>>>> . Additional information about the >>>>>> directorate is at >>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Lars >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> * >>>> Francois Le Faucheur* >>>> *Distinguished Engineer* >>>> *Corporate Development* >>>> flefauch@cisco.com >>>> >>>> Phone: *+33 49 723 2619* >>>> Mobile: *+33 6 19 98 50 90* >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> *Cisco Systems France* >>>> Greenside >>>> 400 Ave de Roumanille >>>> 06410 Sophia Antipolis >>>> France >>>> Cisco.com >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Think before you print. >>>>=20 >>>> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the = sole >>>> use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or >>>> disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the = intended >>>> recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please = contact >>>> the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. >>>>=20 >>>> Cisco Systems France, Soci=E9t=E9 =E0 responsabiit=E9 limit=E9e, = Rue Camille >>>> Desmoulins =96 Imm Atlantis Zac Forum Seine Ilot 7 92130 Issy les >>>> Moulineaux, Au capital de 91.470 =80, 349 166 561 RCS Nanterre, = Directeur >>>> de la publication: Jean-Luc Michel Givone. >>>>=20 >>>> For corporate legal information go to: >>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> rsvp-dir mailing list >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >=20