[10:05:00] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has joined
[10:05:49] --- Martin Stiemerling has joined
[10:05:53] --- magnus has joined
[10:05:58] --- HannesTschofenig has joined
[10:06:46] --- jugi has joined
[10:07:12] --- admcd has joined
[10:12:23] --- rbless has joined
[10:20:28] --- HannesTschofenig has left
[10:31:56] --- jugi has left
[10:32:26] --- jukka has joined
[10:45:29] <jukka> Need to leave now. Interesting discussion, carry on. What we need to do is define the abstract API, as suggested by Andrew. The RMF is like another signaling peer to a QNE, we need to define this signaling interface, even as an abstract API.
[10:46:50] --- jukka has left
[10:54:33] --- rbless has left
[11:07:58] --- jugi has joined
[11:08:05] --- jugi has left
[11:08:19] --- jukka has joined
[11:09:20] <jukka> Still there? I'm on Jabber, and might be able comment, if needed. I would propose we sketch the RMF-NSLP API into the next NSLP spec.
[11:09:58] <jukka> A further point, how different is NSIS from good old RSVP? Compare RMF-NSLP with IntServ-RSVP
[11:10:59] <Martin Stiemerling> still discussing
[11:13:45] <jukka> Ask Georgios if he thinks there is something in the NSLP that breaks/harms/is not enough for RMD? I think the NSLP spec is flexible enough to accommodate very different QOSMs. And if not, then extensions can be defined once we get the (simple?) base spec standardized.
[11:14:15] <magnus> I will drop out of jabber, but will stay on phone for a while.
[11:14:19] --- magnus has left
[11:19:54] <jukka> There was discussion when I left about the RMF-API and it should be QOSM independent. I fully agree on that.
[11:52:05] --- Martin Stiemerling has left: Logged out
[11:52:09] --- admcd has left
[11:55:30] --- jukka has left
[12:03:18] --- lars.eggert@googlemail.com has left