Re: [Tsvwg] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr (Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes) to Informational RFC

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

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 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf