[ncdnhc-discuss] Fw: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the WG

[Jim Fleming]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Smith" <ah_smith at pacbell.net>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen at lucent.com>
Cc: "Diff Serv" <diffserv at ietf.org>; "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the WG


> Bert,
> 
> Right, that is a "what" answer, not a "why" answer.
> 
> I'm not sure *why* this implementation report is of interest to the ADs:
> it's never been a criterion in the past for this level of standardisation.
> By all means move Proposed Standards to "historical" status in a few years
> if you find them not to be widely used but your job here is not to judge
> markets, it's to judge the technical merit of the protocols, and of their
> documentation, that the WGs produce. Based on your reasoning, IETF should be
> just endorsing the proprietary management "protocols" that are the most
> successful in the market.
> 
> Andrew Smith
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen at lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:30 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Andrew Smith
> Cc: Diff Serv; Bert Wijnen; Randy Bush
> Subject: RE: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the WG
> 
> 
> Right... to be very clear
> - we were/are NOT asking for an implementation and interoperability report.
> - we are also NOT asking if people are shipping producs (some people asked
>   me about that)
> - what we are asking is for a "show of hands" of people who have real
>   plans in the short term to implement the PIB
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:49 PM
> > To: Andrew Smith
> > Cc: Diff Serv; Bert Wijnen; Randy Bush
> > Subject: Re: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the WG
> >
> >
> > You'll have to ask the Ops & Mgt ADs that. As far as Draft Standard
> > is concerned, the actual requirement is proven interoperability. We
> > aren't there yet.
> >
> >   Brian
> >
> > Andrew Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > Seems odd that this formal request would come when it's
> > only "proposed
> > > standard" that is being sought - have They changed the
> > rules? It used to be
> > > that such implementation experience was only requested when
> > "draft standard"
> > > status was sought.
> > >
> > > Andrew Smith
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: diffserv-admin at ietf.org
> > [mailto:diffserv-admin at ietf.org]On Behalf
> > > Of Brian E Carpenter
> > > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 8:55 AM
> > > To: Lloyd Wood
> > > Cc: Diff Serv
> > > Subject: Re: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the WG
> > >
> > > Lloyd,
> > >
> > > No, it belongs here because it is a formal request from two
> > Area Directors
> > > as part of the IESG's decision process.
> > >
> > >   Brian
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> diffserv mailing list
> diffserv at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html
> 
>