Subject: [Tsvwg] Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-00

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:52:50 -0800

Bob Briscoe back in November asked in email if I thought that
their proposal resolved the conflict between end-to-end and
edge-to-edge semantics:
 
>To be concrete, I'll ask the question I started with again. Why don't the
>changes to RSVP and NSIS (that I repeat below) resolve the conflict between
>end-to-end and edge-to-edge semantics? The conflict only occurs for flows
>within a signalled reservation, so the conflict can be resolved in the 
>signalling. If the conflict is resolved, this proposal should satisfy 
>Sally's requirements for specifying alternate semantics for ECN in an 
>edge-edge scenario.
>
>[Sally, I'd also be interested in your view - general rules are fine, but
>particular cases like this test the wording.]
    
I have been meaning to read the documents and old email about this all 
over very carefully, to have an answer, but unfortunately I have
never gotten to it.  But I think that Section 5.3 on
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-00.txt is needed nevertheless;  for 
me, one of the reasons to write this draft is so that I *don't*  
have to be the one to evaluate specific proposals for alternate
semantics for ECN.

- Sally

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg