[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tsvwg] End of WGLC: WG Chair comments for RSVP Extensions for Admission Priority



Hi Gorry,

thanks for the careful review.

Abstract:
- This is a minor comment, but careful wording of the abstract could be essential to progressing this:
/Based on current security concerns, these extensions are targeting
  applicability within a single domain./

- Could this say
/are targeting/ should this be /target/
- Or better say:
/Based on current security concerns, these extensions are specified
  for use within a single domain./

- This still leaves me a question about what is the /domain/, is there any way to qualify this as an RSVP admission control domain or something? suggestion welcome?

my co-authors may have a different take on this, but I have a preference on keeping the word "target" within the text. If more clarification is needed, perhaps the phrase "targeted deployment" is more appropriate.

Some members of the IESG are insistent that the focus of this extension be constrained within a domain because that is how they envision its potential deployment. However, the RSVP protocol is agnostic to domains. The specification of the base protocol does not make a distinction or have knowledge of administrative boundaries, and our specification doesn't touch on this subject, which kind of explains your final line of questions.

If members of the IESG have questions/concerns about deployment, then lets constrain our text along those lines.

cheers,

-ken