RE: QoS attributes

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Madjid writes...
 
> Madjid>>Again, seeing the number of attribute proposals in this BoF
> so far and your notion of "reasonable" to me indicates that people
hold
> dear to the address space.

And just what do you think my notion of "reasonable" is, pray tell?  :-)

> Madjid>>Isn't levels of service, like bronze, silver... really depend
> on what is on the service contract in a specific scenario? Is what is
> bronze in one system, also bronze in another? Do all systems have
> the same number of levels. I don't see how this helps the problem
scale?

I think it helps the problem scale because it reduces it to relatively
simple "business domain" terminology.  If we had to worry about exact
levels of QoS, it's unlikely that we would ever come to agreement as to
when requirements effectively matched capabilities.  Sometimes too much
granularity is a bad thing.  The fact of the mater is that is that all
the players in a roaming consortium will have contractual relationships.
I assert this to be true, because there is virtually no other way that
each player can be confident that they will receive their share of the
revenue stream.  Given that business agreements will exist, coming to a
common agreement about the range of QoS parameters in each level of
service category (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Unattanium, etc.)
should not be a very difficult problem to solve.

Let's not make thinks more complicated than they absolutely need to be.

-- Dave



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>