RE: [NSIS] QSPEC document
Lars,
>Rough consensus of what ?
>You seems to utilize the vacation period to try to make formal
>statement. I dont' think that this is good way of working.
>First of all!!! No-one have asked for these changes and I
>wonder about the source for these chanages. We have been
>working during four years and noone have com-up with this concerns.
>This is the same basic mis-understanding of the architectural
>as the interoperbillity discussion for "bearer service".
>
>How should we solve NSIS-proxy, indication of header
>compression without re-writing the whole QoS-NSLP ???
>
>I still don't understand how this discussion has come-up.
>Someone seem not follow the discussion from the beginning!!!
The changes came because we found out (and discussed extensively
at the last IETF) that there were severe interoperability
problems with the QSPEC as previously defined. We are trying
to fix this issue and move forward. I think you can look
at some of Dave Oran's mails to the mailing list that has
prompted the discussion. I can provide pointers, if you
would need them.
Yes, I would appreciate that.