Re: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-01.txt

[Balazs Szviatovszki <Balazs.Szviatovszki@eth.ericsson.se>]

Jim and others,

The requirement document is very good. We think that our solution 
described in previous mails posted to TE-WG fulfils exactly 
these requirement. (See thread Re: Question to draft-lefaucheur-diff-te-ext
that was active between 11/23/00 and 11/29/00)

Jim Boyle wrote:
 >
 > At this time, let's try to make sure that we have covered the
 > requirements in requisite, but not exhaustive detail in the draft.If
 > there's something major missing, let's make that clear.

We think that in order to fulfil all the points in section 2.2. 
different class-types can not have overlapping priorities. 
It would be much clearer to explicitly say this among the 
requirements. If one thinks, that overlapping priorities 
are useful, please provide an example how would you use it
in such a way that is in line with the requirements!

Example:
=======
We think the below overlapping case does not make sense:

EF -> Class-type 1 (Using priorities 1-2)
AF -> Class-type 2 (Using priorities 2-3-4)
BE -> Class-type 0 (Using priorities 5-6-7)

 > As for technical solutions, anyone who feels they have a technical
 > approaches to solving the problems and detailed requirements outlined
 > should be working on articulating their technical proposal.  If anyone
 > has something ready for discussion, I don't see why delay in posting it.
 > (currently, only francois's are documented)

I would describe the solution already posted to the list in a max 3 page 
draft :)))

Wrap-up of our proposal:
=======================

Four new unreserved bandwidth advertisements (one for each class-type) 
beside the already present 8 per-priority advertisements (4+8 = 12)

/Francois proposes 4x8 values to be advertised and a complicated coding scheme to reduce this. This has importance only if overlapping priorities make sense./


Balazs